Preamble

The House met—after the Adjournment on Thursday, 6th August, for the Summer Recess.—Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. SPEAKER made the following communication to the House:

I regret to have to inform the House of the death of Sir Joseph McConnell, Baronet, Member for the County of Antrim, and I desire, on behalf of the House, to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

WRIT ISSUED DURING THE ADJOURNMENT

Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had issued during the Adjournment a Warrant for a new Writ for the Borough of Sheffield (Park Division), in the room of George Lathan, Esq., deceased.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Regional Offices

Major Lyons: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the establishment of his

regional offices, excluding clerical and messenger grades, and the respective salaries of the appointments under the director in each office; and whether there is to be uniformity in each region?

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Major Lloyd George): As the information for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks is detailed and lengthy, I propose, with his consent, to have it circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Major Lyons: Will it include an estimate of the sum total of the annual cost?

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir.

Following is the information:

I have created a Regional Organisation within my Department consisting of 12 Regions whose boundaries correspond broadly to those of the Civil Defence Regions, except that I have created a separate coal-production Region for Cumberland and Northumberland, and have grouped the London and South Eastern Regions together for certain purposes.

In each Region I have appointed a Regional Controller who will be responsible for co-ordinating all the local functions of my Department within his Region. Eight of the Regions embrace coal producing districts and in these Regions the Controller will have under him three Directors (Production, Labour and Services), as envisaged in the recent White Paper on Coal (Cmd. 6364). In all Regions, the Controllers have assumed responsibility for the work carried out by


the Divisional Coal Officers, Divisional Petroleum Officers and Gas Liaison Officers.

Generally speaking, the organisation of each Regional Headquarters for the coal-producing Regions will be uniform in character, but there will be small variations to meet particular needs of different Regions, and the organisation in the non-producing Regions will naturally be much smaller.

With minor variations the senior appointments in each of the eight coal-producing Regions will consist of:

1 Regional Controller—salary £2,000.

3 Regional Directors—salaries between £1,000 and £1,250.

1 Regional Inspector of Mines—salary £1,000–£1,200.

4 Assistant Directors—salaries between £600 and £880.

1 Chief Executive Officer—salary between £650 and £860.

1 Regional Coal Officer—salary between £700 and £900.

2 Assistant Regional Coal Officers—salaries between £600 and £750.

1 Regional Petroleum Officer—salary between £650 and £800.

1 Gas Liaison Officer (in certain Regions)—salary between £700 and £1,000.

In the four non-coal-producing Regions, the former Regional Fuel and Power Controllers of the Board of Trade have generously agreed to serve as Regional Controllers of my Department without remuneration. In these Regions there will be no Directors or Assistant Directors of Production or Labour and no Regional Inspector of Mines, but otherwise the Organisation will be similar to that in the coal-producing Regions.

Coal Output

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he can give any information as to increases of coal output since the recent rise in miners' wages?

Mr. Molson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he can give the figures of output of coal per miner per week during the first six months of the present year; and the corresponding figure for the period subsequent to the coming into operation of the Greene award?

Major Lloyd George: The incidence of the holiday season, which has only just concluded, together with other variable factors, make it impracticable, as yet, to draw any definite conclusion as to the effect of the award on output. But I am bound to say that the evidence available to date is not at all reassuring.

Mr. Keeling: In view of the paramount importance of increasing the coal output, would my right hon. and gallant Friend consider renewing the application made by his predecessor for the return of miners from the Army?

Mr. Shinwell: If the evidence is so far not reassuring, can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give any indication as to the causes of the trouble and whether it is not due to the fact that there are not sufficient men available for the purpose of producing coal?

Major Lloyd George: The actual number of men available at the moment is slightly in excess of what it was last year.

Economy Schemes

Sir George Broadbridge: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the estimated amount of petrol saved up to the 22nd August, 1942, by reason of the stoppage of basic allowances and substantial reductions in supplementary grants of petrol; the amount of lubricant oil saved; the amount of coal saved since the new Order was instituted; and the increase of coal from the pits for the last three months?

Major Lloyd George: I am advised that it would be contrary to the public interest to give the figures relating to petrol and lubricating oil. As regards coal, the desired figures of consumption are not available. So far as production is concerned, I would refer by hon. Friend to the reply I have given to a Question by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling).

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware that the climate of certain districts near the East Coast is considerably more rigorous than that of other districts which receive the same or a greater allowance of fuel under the recently announced scheme; and whether he will revise his strictly horizontal classification of counties?

Major Lloyd George: It is true that, taking the evidence afforded by isotherms alone, some of the coldest parts of Great Britain in winter are on, or near, the East Coast. But if the hon. Member is suggesting that districts on the East Coast should for this reason be offered a more generous fuel economy target than more westerly districts of the same latitude, I fear that I cannot accept his suggestion. The ordinary dry bulb thermometer is not an adequate measure of climate as it affects human-beings. The rawness of the air in the North and the humidity of the air in the West must also be taken into account. For this and other reasons, the domestic consumption of fuel in fact increases as one goes northwards, and, taking all the relevant considerations into account, I am satisfied that the boundaries of the three zones are the most suitable that can be reasonably devised.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that charts in the Oxford Advanced Atlas indicate that the county of Essex in particular is in an exceptionally unfavourable position under his scheme as regards dampness as well as coldness; and will he bear in mind that assuming this voluntary scheme has any meaning at all—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member appears to be making a speech.

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he will recognise the undesirability of suggesting, without reservation, that families should all take their meals in the kitchen and use only one other living room in the house; and whether, in reconsidering the King-Hall proposals, he will consult women with some experience of how houses and homes are run and can be run?

Major Lloyd George: The actual words used by my hon. and gallant Friend were:
A substantial economy of fuel in space heating could be achieved if all meals were taken in the kitchen, and one or both of the living rooms not used unless they could be used without fires.
A large proportion of domestic fuel consumed is used for space heating and I see no reason to withdraw this suggestion, which is one of many issued by my Department in order to assist consumers in economising fuel. As regards

the last part of the Question, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the knowledge and experience of house-wives is constantly used in connection with my fuel economy campaign.

Mr. Brooke: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, why he is fixing the same voluntary ration of coal, gas and electricity for households consisting entirely of persons who are normally away from home all day and have most of their meals out, as for elderly or invalid people who have to have all their meals at home and need warmth at home all day in winter?

Major Lloyd George: The domestic fuel targets put forward under the fuel economy scheme indicate the general standards to be aimed at by the average household. It is obviously impracticable to prescribe targets for special cases, of the type to which the hon. Member refers, and I must leave it to the discretion of households containing invalid or aged persons to economise in the use of fuels to the greatest possible extent which is practicable in the circumstances.

Mr. Brooke: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that, unless more is done to adjust voluntary rations to the actual and varying needs, some people will be discouraged by finding their target quite out of their reach whereas for others the target will mean no sacrifice at all?

Major Lloyd George: It is a voluntary appeal, and it must be left to people who are doing their best to meet the situation to decide what is proper in the circumstances.

Mr. Shinwell: Cannot the right hon. and gallant Gentleman be warned in time that a voluntary appeal can never prove successful?

Major Lloyd George: I am afraid I cannot accept that altogether, because I have had experience in the past of very successful voluntary appeals, particularly in the last war.

Miners (Release from Armed Forces)

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power the number of miners who have been allowed to return to the mines from the Forces; and whether he will make it known under what conditions they will be recalled?

Major Lloyd George: Approximately 9,100 men released from the Army and the Royal Air Force under the special arrangement for the return of ex-miners have started work in coal mines. The men who were released from the Army will remain in the industry indefinitely and the period of release granted to men from the Royal Air Force has been extended to 30th June, 1943. All collieries have been informed of these arrangements.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Can the number be given of face workers in the 9,000 returned from the Services?

Mr. Molson: Are any further releases taking place from the Armed Forces at present?

Absenteeism (Miners)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether his attention has been drawn to a recent assertion made by the North-Western Regional Controller of Fuel and Power that the Government proposed to deal with absenteeism among miners by inflicting harsher and more immediate punishment; and why, in view of the fact that prosecutions, fines and imprisonment of miners at the instance of the Minister of Labour have failed to secure an increase of production, he has sanctioned this policy?

Major Lloyd George: I have seen some Press reports of the statement referred to, but I can find nothing in them to justify the expressions used by the hon. Member. The Regional Controller informs me that he made it clear, in the course of his statement, that persuasion will be used to the maximum extent, and that there is no intention of using more drastic means unless persuasion proves hopeless. As proposed in paragraph 18 of the White Paper on Coal the Essential Work (Coal Mining Industry) Order, 1942, is being amended. Absence from work without reasonable excuse will in future be a direct offence under Regulation 58a of the Defence (General) Regulations. If, after full inquiries by an Investigation Officer of my Department, it is clear that any person has been absent from work without reasonable excuse and has not proved amenable to persuasion, a recommendation will be made to the National Service Officer that proceedings should be taken against him.

Mr. Davies: Does the right hon. and. gallant Gentleman deny the assumption in the Question that the Fuel Controller made this statement, and will he bear in mind the suggestion that the miners are the last people in the world to increase production as the result of threatening them with harsh treatment?

Major Lloyd George: I am satisfied that the statement of the Controller does not warrant the expression used by the hon. Gentleman. It is not a question of harsh treatment at all; it is a question of persuading a man that it is his duty not to absent himself without reason. Only if persuasion fails will other steps be taken.

Mr. Gallacher: Is no consideration given to the fact that in many cases sections of men are laid off by the employers and that there is never any mention of any kind of treatment directed towards the employers?

Major Lloyd George: I assure the hon. Member that under the existing arrangement that cannot happen.

Mr. Molson: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, whether he will give figures showing the increase, or decrease, of absenteeism in miners during the week after the retrospective payment under the Greene award was made and in all subsequent weeks?

Major Lloyd George: The weeks immediately preceding and following that in which the retrospective payment was made were at the height of the holiday season, when unfortunately absenteeism is usually at a high rate among miners not actually on holiday. It it difficult, therefore, to discover any relation between absenteeism figures and the making of the payment. The absenteeism figures for the five weeks preceding the making of the award itself and for a similar period following it were 10.47 and 9.74 per cent. respectively; while the figure relating to shifts worked per man in these periods rose from 5.19 to 5.36, and that relating to shifts lost fell from 6 of a shift to 58.

Sir Herbert Williams: Has there been a change in policy? Some weeks ago information with regard to absenteeism was denied on grounds of security. Is there now a change of policy?

Coal Stack, Solihull

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, what contractor is employed by him to unload and stack coal at the Solihull reserve dump; what previous experience this contractor has had; and what is the method of remuneration.

Major Lloyd George: Coal is being stacked at the Solihull site by Messrs. Winston Bros. Ltd., contractors, of 197, Bristol Road, Birmingham, 5, under a contract with my Ministry which provides for the, payment of a fixed rate per ton stacked, with other provisions covering transport and maintenance of the mechanical plant used. The contractor, who is experienced in mechanical handling of this nature, was engaged after exhaustive inquiries had failed to secure the services of a coal merchant to handle the necessary tonnage at a comparable price.

Sir J. Mellor: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that not less than a sixth of the railway wagons which have been unloaded at the Solihull dump have been damaged by this contractor?

Major Lloyd George: I have no information of that at all, but I have knowledge that it was not possible to get any coal merchant to undertake the work at anything like the price at which this contractor accepted it.

Sir J. Mellor: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend satisfied that this unloading is being done in an economical manner?

Major Lloyd George: I am satisfied that the dump is being filled.

Sir J. Mellor: Has my right hon. and gallant Friend made inquiries as to the methods employed?

Electricity Consumption

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the material reduction of consumption reported by the North Eastern Electric Supply Company, of Newcastle, in 22 areas in different parts of the country; and what is the estimated reduction in the country generally?

Major Lloyd George: I have seen the statement in the Press to which my hon. Friend refers, and which related to the June quarter. I am not at present in a position to give the estimate asked for in the second part of the Question, but I

hope to have some information available shortly for the country generally.

Lost Working Days (Mines)

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many strikes are now in operation, how many men are involved; what is the daily loss of coal in each of the pits concerned; and how man) man-hours have been lost since the increased wage award was granted this year?

Major Lloyd George: I am glad to tell the House that, according to the latest available information, there is no stoppage of work through disputes in any part of the. coalfield. Since payment began under the recent wage award the total man-days lost owing to disputes is approximately 33,800, or rather, less than 5,000 tons a week. Figures of man-hours lost are not available.

Captain Gammans: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many working days have been lost in the mines of Great Britain during August, 1942, by strikes; and what is the approximate tonnage of coal represented by such stop pages?

Major Lloyd George: The total man-days lost through disputes in the month of August were 25,443, representing a total loss of approximately 24,600 tons.

Miners' Health

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps have been taken to establish a medical service in the several regions under the reorganisation scheme; and whether he will cause an investigation into the effect of diet deficiencies, particularly deficiency of fats, upon the health of coalminers?

Major Lloyd George: Officers of my Department in association with those of the other Departments concerned, are working out a scheme for a mines medical service, and I hope to be able to announce my proposals shortly. The general question of diet is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, but as regards coalminers in particular the question of food in relation to the colliery canteens has been considered by the Miners' Welfare Commission in association with the Ministry of Food and in consultation with high medical authorities; and I will bring my hon. Friend's suggestion to the Commission's notice.

Mr. Griffiths: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that in some areas the doctors are concerned about dermatitis which they think is due to deficiency of fat in the diet, and will he bear in mind that unless miners are given adequate food the output is bound to go down?

Electricity Charges

Major Sir Adrian Baillie: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is aware of the continued waste of electricity resulting from agreements which provide for minimum charges; and whether some arrangements can be made whereby any difference between the charge for electricity actually consumed and the minimum charge will be shared equally by the supplying company and the consumer whose patriotism has resulted in the consumption being less than the minimum?

Major Lloyd George: I am aware of a considerable volume of complaint from consumers who, having reduced their consumption, find themselves called on to pay a minimum charge. I have been giving this matter careful consideration, in consultation with the industry, and hope to make an announcement on the subject very shortly.

Mr. Ridley: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the arrangement referred to in the Question is designed to encourage the consumption of electricity and that its continuance now means that the much needed economy in consumption does not result in an economy to the consumer, as is the case in every other commodity?

Major Lloyd George: I am aware of that, but there are great difficulties attached to this question, particularly as these charges are often statutory and are made in order to pay for installations and so forth, but I hope shortly to come to a solution.

Motor Vehicles (Coal-gas)

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, under what conditions the use of coal-gas is permitted as a propellant of private and commercial vehicles and whether any control is exercised over the price which may be charged for coal-gas used for this purpose?

Major Lloyd George: The use of coal-gas as a propellant for vehicles has been made subject to licence, in order to conserve fuel and materials. The licences, which are issued by Regional Transport Commissioners of the Ministry of War Transport, will only be issued to vehicles engaged on essential work. The price of gas supplied to vehicles should not exceed that charged to ordinary domestic consumers, which is subject to the control imposed by the enactments relating to the particular undertaking concerned; but a charge would no doubt be made for compression, and this is not subject to control.

Oral Answers to Questions — SILICOSIS

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power, what progress has been made in the consideration of the Report of the Medical Research Council on the problem of silicosis; and when it is proposed to give legislative effect to the committee's recommendations?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): I have been asked to reply. Proposals for action in the direction recommended by the Committee have been communicated to the two sides of the industry and discussions are in progress. I hope that it may be possible to reach agreement on these proposals at an early date as a basis for legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — EIRE TREATY PORTS (OFFICERS' INCOME TAX)

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that officers who were employed in the Treaty ports of Eire and were domiciled therein during the period which elapsed between the agreement with the Irish Free State of 1921 and the agreement made between Great Britain and Eire in April, 1938, who had already paid Income Tax on their pay to the British Government, have received demands from the Government of Eire to pay Income Tax over again, though, at that time, they were residing in forts which were ex-territorial and part of the United Kingdom: and if he will negotiate with the Government of Eire on this matter?

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Emrys-Evans): I am making inquiries into the point raised


by the hon. Member. I should be glad if he could supply me with particulars of the cases to which he refers.

Professor Savory: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have a letter in my hand from the War Office admitting the facts as stated in my Question and regretting their inability to take any action?

Mr. Emrys-Evans: I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will let me have the letter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Furniture Prices

Mr. Ridley: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any further statement to make regarding furniture prices and, in particular, as to the effect of the Order signed by him on 3rd August?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Dalton): This Order came into force on 17th August last, and I am satisfied, from the reports submitted by the local price regulation committees that it has resulted in a reduction in furniture prices generally.

Lost Clothing Coupons (Replacement)

Mr. Douglas: asked the President of the Board of Trade when, and under what conditions, it is proposed to resume the issue of clothing coupons in place of those accidentally lost or destroyed?

Mr. Dalton: Application for the replacement of lost or destroyed clothing coupons should at present be made direct to the Board of Trade. On and after 21st September, application forms will be available at any Money Order Post Office, Citizen's Advice Bureau or Women's Voluntary Service Centre. Replacement of coupons imposes, in most cases, an additional strain on the limited clothing supplies available. Coupons will only be replaced, therefore, where loss is due to causes outside the owner's control, such as enemy action or burglary, or where exceptional need for clothing is proved.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider that proposal in view of the long delays which must ensue owing to inquiries between the Board of

Trade and local authorities to see whether the statements made by applicants are true?

Mr. Dalton: I have done all I can to speed up the procedure, and I shall be glad to do anything further to that end, but we have had a number of claims for lost coupons which are fraudulent, and we must guard the clothing supplies of the country.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people whose coupons have been stolen through no fault of their own wrote to the Board of Trade weeks ago and cannot get any reply?

Mr. Dalton: We have had a large number of claims, and not all of them are, I am afraid, genuine on investigation, but if my hon. Friend will mention any cases to me I will do my utmost to speed them up.

Price Regulation

Mr. Beattie: asked the President of the Board of Trade the total number of prosecutions undertaken by price regulation committees and the number in which convictions were secured; and whether he will give the figures for each price regulation committee?

Mr. Dalton: The total number of prosecutions undertaken by price regulation committees since they were set up at the end of 1939 to 31st July, 1942, was 352. Convictions were secured in 314 of these cases. As the second part of the Question involves a number of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:


Committee.
Prosecutions.
Convictions.


Northern
12
11


North-Eastern
13
9


North Midland
10
10


Eastern
40
33


London
29
23


South Eastern
9
8


Southern
46
39


South Western
20
18


Midland
23
21


North Western
10
9


South Wales
4
4


North Wales
7
7


South and South East Scotland
22
22


South West Scotland
63
59


North Scotland
13
12


North East Scotland
22
22


Northern Ireland
9
7

Mr. Beattie: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to a statement made by the chairman of the North Midland Price Regulation Committee regarding the work of price regulation committees throughout the country; and whether this statement represents the view of his Department?

Mr. Dalton: My attention has been called to an article which appeared recently in a Sunday newspaper. I greatly appreciate the work that is being done by the North Midland Price Regulation Committee, but all these committees are admirably performing their most useful functions, and it would be invidious for me to single out one more than another for special praise.

Closed Businesses

Mr. Hannah: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether a list is being kept of all businesses compulsorily closed or only of factories, in the narrow sense?

Mr. Dalton: Lists are kept in my Department of factories closed under concentration and also of all premises requisitioned by other Departments under the authority of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Hannah: Do the Government realise the terrible hardships to many individuals caused, by this policy?

Major Lyons: Has my right hon. Friend any knowledge of a large number of small shopkeepers being forced out of business as a result of economic causes and difficulties of trading?

Mr. Dalton: No small shops are compulsorily closed. That question does not strictly arise on my hon. Friend's Question, which I have answered as it appears on the Paper, and perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will await my answer to a later Question on retail trade.

Girls' Training Corps (Uniforms)

Mr. Brooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the discouragement felt by girls throughout the country who joined the Girls' Training Corps and now find that, although eight months have passed since it was approved by the Government as the official organisation for providing pre-service training for girls, uniform is still not obtainable for it; and whether, if he

cannot release new material for this purpose, he will make women's reconditioned service uniform available to the corps in order to avoid further delay and disappointment?

Mr. Dalton: This matter has been discussed with representatives of the National Association of Girls' Training Corps. There should be no difficulty in obtaining supplies of this clothing through ordinary trade channels, and I have suggested that the Association should make arrangements for its manufacture through the Trade Associations concerned. I regret that supplies of suitable reconditioned Service uniforms are not coming forward in sufficient quantities to meet essential industrial and agricultural needs, and they cannot therefore be made available to the Girls' Training Corps. I have agreed, however, to the issue of 30,000 reconditioned A.T.S. forage caps.

Flight-Lieutenant Etherton: Will the materials for the uniforms issued be coupon-free?

Mr. Dalton: That is a different question. It was not raised by the Answer to the original Question.

Check Trading

Sir H. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the opposition on the part of wage-earners to the order which prohibits poundage in connection with check trading, he will withdraw this order so as to avoid the hardship which otherwise arises to both sides in check trading transactions?

Mr. Hannah: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the growing concern felt by many over the proposed prohibition of check trading, and the fact that many large clothing and provident societies in different parts of the country could not carry on their work under any other system; and will he consider his decision?

Mr. Goldie: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the extent to which the check poundage system is utilised for the purchase of clothing and other necessaries by the working classes and of the anxiety felt at the suggested abolition or modification thereof; and whether, in the interests of such purchasers, he will ensure that there shall be


no interference with a method of purchase which is of assistance to the industrial community?

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has reconsidered his decision to abolish all charges of poundage on check trading companies in view of the great hardship this will cause to a large number of people?

Mr. Dalton: While I have received a large amount of correspondence on this subject, I have seen few signs of spontaneous opposition on the part of wage-earners to the prohibition of poundage, and I see no reason for altering my decision, which was arrived at after the most careful consideration, and does not imply the prohibition of check trading, but only of additional charges to purchasers over and above the maximum prices now fixed.

Sir H. Williams: Is it not a fact that the bulk of the correspondence has come from wage-earners who like this system of trading, and are angry over the action proposed?

Mr. Dalton: I am anxious to be perfectly frank with the House about this matter. It is a difficult question. There has been considerable agitation about it, instigated wholly by the check traders. There are a large number of other forms of credit trading available to persons of small means—there are the credit given by retail shops, direct credit traders who themselves deliver goods through travellers to the purchasers, which the check traders do not, clothing clubs of many kinds run by shops and co-operative societies, and mail order and other agencies. All these have accepted my Order and accepted the new situation under which all credit charges, all organiser's commissions, and the like, must be included within the margins allowed in the Order. I could only agree to make a special concession to check traders if it could be shown on the one hand that they were performing a specially valuable social function which would otherwise not be performed, and, secondly if it were equitable between different sections of credit traders, and neither of these conditions can be satisfied.

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: In view of the fact that I know of 30,000 persons whose standard of living will be very seriously affected, will my right hon.

Friend receive a Parliamentary deputation on the subject from Members of all parties who are interested in this question?

Mr. Dalton: I am not sure that they would speak with one voice if I were to receive them. I have gone into this matter exceedingly carefully. Two deputations from the check traders have been received by my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who has also gone into the matter carefully, and my officials have received a number of representations, and I think I really do know all the facts, and I do not feel there would be any advantage in my receiving any further' deputation on the subject, but, naturally, I am always very glad to see hon. Members of this House who wish to consult me.

Sir Robert Bird: asked the President of the Board of Trade the man-power estimated to be released on 1st October for the war effort as a consequence of the Control Order issued by him, operating on this date, which prohibits the poundage charge by check trading companies in respect of the purchase of utility clothing and footwear?

Mr. Dalton: I regret that no close estimate can be made, since it is impossible to foresee to what extent the prohibition of poundage charges will affect the activities of the check trading companies. Nor is it known exactly how many persons they now employ. But the number is certainly considerable and I am informed that one company alone still has over 9,000 employees. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour with a view to ensuring that all persons released as a result of this measure are directed to essential war service.

Sir R. Bird: Is the right hon. Gentleman that in the case of one of the leading companies one-third of the agents are engaged only in their spare time and are already otherwise fully employed on war work, and therefore they cannot be reckoned as not making a contribution to the national effort, and that the remaining two-thirds consist of military rejects and males of 60 to 70 years of age?

Concentration of Industry (Compensation)

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of compensation schemes in operation under the


concentration of industry; and the precise basis on which these are arrived at?

Mr. Dalton: Twenty compensation schemes covering whole industries or large sections of industries have been approved. These vary widely in character. Usually there is a central fund raised by levy on the machine-capacity or the turnover of the nucleus firms, and from this fund the closing firms draw compensation. This compensation has to be applied first to the care and maintenance of the plant and machinery of the closed firms. For the rest of the concentrated industries numbering 36, there are no central compensation schemes, and the normal practice is for the nucleus firm to produce goods at cost for the closing firm which continues as a selling organisation.

Clothes Rationing (Boarding School Children)

Mr. Brooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that his decison not to allow the next batch of clothing coupons to be used before October, although all parents of children returning to boarding schools have to equip them with winter clothing by the third week in September, is leaving parents with no option but to have clothes reserved for them at shops and posted to school as soon as the coupons become valid, causing extra trouble, book-keeping and postal work; whether he will antedate the validity of coupons to prevent this; and whether he will have regard to school terms when the time comes to fix coupon dates for 1943–44?

Mr. Dalton: The difficulty referred to by my hon. Friend arises chiefly in the case of the older children who pay the full coupon rates, and I have accordingly arranged for the additional coupons to which they are entitled to be available as from 31st August. The facilities at many schools for exchanging outgrown clothes will also be helpful. As regards the second and third parts of the Question, the dates at which the various groups of coupons become valid must be determined by supply considerations, in view of which I cannot see my way to antedate the validity of the brown coupons. Due account will be taken, when the time comes to fix coupon dates for 1943–44, of the dates of school terms, among other relevant factors.

Mr. Gallacher: Would not this difficulty be overcome if they were to send their children to ordinary council schools?

Primus Stoves (Spare Parts)

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will arrange for the import of spare parts for primus stoves, to enable the owners of such stoves to continue their use, thus avoiding the greater consumption of oil by other stoves or the use of other kinds of fuel?

Mr. Dalton: I am issuing import licences for all spare parts of primus stoves available for export to this country.

Prosecutions

Mr. Graham White: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can make a statement on the work and progress of his enforcement department?

Mr. Dalton: There have been 772 prosecutions under the rationing and Limitation of Supply Orders administered by my Department and fines totalling £560,000 have been imposed together with prison sentences totalling 52 years. Since 1st April, 1942, there have been 368 prosecutions, and fines have totalled £331,000. The work of enforcement of the Consumer Rationing Orders has been placed in the charge of ex-Superintendent Yandell of the Metropolitan Police, who was appointed Chief Enforcement Officer on 1st June, 1942. A number of experienced ex-police officers have been appointed to Mr. Yandell's staff.

Mr. White: While appreciating that the answer of my right hon. Friend shows that there have been very substantial activities, may I ask whether he is proposing to dispense with this enforcement Department and to depend wholly upon the activities of the police to deal with these cases?

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir, it is my duty to be responsible, in consultation, of course, with the police and other Departments, for enforcing the law against black marketeers for whom, I am sure, there is very little sympathy.

Mr. White: May I ask whether in the meantime all these officials have been instructed that they must obey police rules and not act in any way as agents provocateur?

Mr. Dalton: Yes, and in view of certain statements which have appeared in the Press I am very glad to give the House a very definite assurance on that subject. Perhaps I may read a sentence from instructions issued by my Department:
Extreme care must be exercised at all times by the Board's enforcement officers to avoid provocation or any activity which might be construed as provocation. In general, enforcement officers making these purchases"—
which are necessary—
should not hold any conversation with the trader regarding coupons and should not say anything calculated to arouse the trader's sympathy. When a shop is visited the enforcement officer should avoid as far as possible making purchases from young and inexperienced assistants.
Those orders have been issued to all my officers.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Who gets the large sums of money, totalling hundreds of thousands of pounds, represented by the fines referred to?

Mr. Dalton: It all finds its way in the long run to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Non-Food Retail Trade Committee

Mr. Graham White: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the recommendations of the Non-Food Retail Trade Committee?

Mr. Dalton: As I explained to the House in the Debate on this subject of 23rd July, these recommendations have been strongly opposed by many of the trading interests most closely concerned. Moreover, legislation would be needed to give effect to them. In pursuance of the undertaking I gave to the House on 23rd July, I have been carefully examining, not only these recommendations, but also the views expressed by hon. Members in the course of a very useful Debate. I am now considering various practical proposals and I hope to make a statement at an early date.

Mr. De la Bère: Are we to understand that the whole matter will be left to discussion between one side and another? Does not the Minister realise that this matter is of the gravest urgency? It all seems feeble, and something must be done about it.

Mr. Dalton: I realise that it is a matter of the greatest urgency, and I have been pursuing it with the greatest energy in my Department; so have my officers, and so have certain people from outside who have been kind enough to help me. I hope that in a few weeks I shall be able to make a definite statement on the subject.

Domestic Pottery (Price Control)

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the prices of household crockery and china are in some cases five times the prewar price; and what steps he is taking to control the price of these articles?

Mr. Dalton: I made an Order on 1st June prohibiting any further increase in manufacturers' prices and limiting distributors' margins for all domestic pottery sold in the home market. Under the same Order I also fixed maximum prices for essential articles of plain earthenware, to which production for the home market is now largely confined. These prices are below those generally ruling before the Order was made and much below the extreme cases mentioned by my hon. Friend. I rely on members of the public to report any cases of excessive prices to the local price regulation committees for investigation.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE (FOOD SUPPLIES)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare what progress has been made, up to 31st August, in fulfilling the promised supplies of 15,000 tons of wheat or flour to our Greek Allies?

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare what progress has been made in the arrangements for the relief of famine in Greece?

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he has any further statement to make respecting shipments of food and other necessities to Greece; and, approximately, the quantity of these that have reached and are being delivered monthly to the Greek people?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): The Swedish scheme, of which I informed the House on 21st April, has now come into operation, and three Swedish ships carrying 15,000 tons of Canadian wheat arrived at Piraeus on 29th August. Two other Swedish ships carrying approximately a further 15,000 tons sailed from Montreal on the same date. This is in addition to the cargo of the s.s. "Hallaren," which reached Piraeus on 21st August with 1,245 tons of flour and 2,264 tons of wheat, all of which had been made available from Allied resources in the Middle East. She had already off-loaded at Smyrna 1,000 tons of wheat for transhipment to the Greek Aegean Islands. The Turkish s.s. "Dulumpinar" also arrived at Piraeus during the last week of August with a cargo of dried fruit and vegetables.

Sir T. Moore: While thanking my hon. Friend for that satisfactory answer, may I ask whether he has any information to show that the Germans are allowing our Greek friends to retain and to consume this food?

Mr. Foot: The Swedish Commission appointed to administer the scheme arrived in Athens in the last few days of August. Of course, it will be their business to supervise the distribution both of the imported foodstuffs and, to some extent, of Greek domestic produce.

Mr. Sorensen: Can we take it that shipments of foodstuffs to Greece will continue so long as the need is urgent?

Mr. Foot: The shipments will continue at the rate which was intended, namely, 15,000 tons a month, provided that the conditions of the scheme are observed by the enemy.

Mr. Sorensen: Have these conditions been observed up to now?

Mr. Foot: As I said, the Commission arrived in Athens only in the last few days of August, and there has been very little time for them to send a report.

Mr. Leach: On the return journey, have all these ships been allowed to reach their ports?

Mr. Foot: As I have said, the first three of the Swedish ships only arrived on 29th August. My information is that they have not yet been fully unloaded. The

House will recollect that an earlier vessel carrying relief to Greece received an Axis safe-conduct but nevertheless was sunk by the Italians on the return journey.

Hon. Members: Shame.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENEMY-OCCUPIED EUROPE (FOOD SUPPLIES)

Mr. Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether he can give any information as to the shortage of food supplies in Belgium; and whether any proposals for the supply under neutral control of food and milk to schoolchildren and nursing mothers have been considered by His Majesty's Government and by any of the Allied Governments?

Mr. Foot: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave him on 21st July, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Harvey: Has any recommendation been received from any of the Allied Governments?

Mr. Foot: That point is, I think, covered by the answer which I gave on 21st July.

Mr. John Dugdale: Will the Minister take into account the importance of ensuring that, however great the hardship may be for these people, we do not assist the enemy in any way by feeding the entire population of Europe?

Mr. Foot: Certainly, Sir, that is constantly in our minds.

Oral Answers to Questions — HEAD OF THE CIVIL SERVICE

Major Lyons: asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any further statement upon the divorcement of the position of head of the Civil Service from that of the head of the Treasury?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. Brown) on 4th August.

Major Lyons: Is it a fact that so long as this gentleman holds the dual position, the head of the Treasury is, in effect, the Controller of Establishments in each Government Department?

The Prime Minister: All these matters were considered before the appointment was made. The new lines of criticism which have developed were all explored and weighed. I should think some opportunity would occur during the course of the session when all matters like this might be debated.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCHANT NAVY (AWARDS FOR GALLANTRY)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether any decision has yet been reached on the question of creating a Merchant Navy Cross and Medal for gallantry in action or, alternatively, making officers and other ranks of that service eligible for naval decorations even when fighting independently of naval orders;
(2) whether officers and other ranks of the Merchant Navy, who receive the Order of the British Empire, are appointed to its civil or military division; and whether he will advise His Majesty that all such awards for gallantry in action should be in the military division with effect from 3rd September, 1939?

The Prime Minister: Officers of the Merchant Navy, serving as such, who receive the Order of the British Empire, are appointed to the Civil Division, which is, of course, of equal status to the Military Division of the Order. It is not proposed to vary this arrangement or to make any recommendation for the creation of further decorations. The personnel of the Merchant Navy serving under special agreement as part of the Royal Navy have hitherto been eligible for the Naval gallantry awards other than the D.S.O. That position has now been rectified and the D.S.O. is available for Merchant Navy officers serving in these circumstances.
The special services of the Merchant Navy generally were recognised several years ago by His Majesty's approval of officers and men in that Service being eligible, under certain circumstances, for the award of the Victoria Cross and the Distinguished Service Cross. I am glad to be able to inform the House that His Majesty has been pleased to approve the addition of the Distinguished Service Order, the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal, and the Distinguished Service Medal to this list of decorations open for award in the Merchant Navy.

Mr. Keeling: In regard to the Civil Division of the Order of the British Empire, does the Prime Minister really think it is appropriate that the Merchant Navy should receive for gallantry the same decoration and wear the same ribbon as civilians who have never been under fire at all?

The Prime Minister: It is a compliment to the civilians.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH AND UNITED STATES FORCES (INTERCHANGE OF PERSONNEL)

Captain Anstruther-Gray: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider utilising the advantages to be derived both in training, co-operation and friendship from short visits or attachments of officers and non-commissioned officers of the British and American Forces to similar units in all three Services, apart altogether from the appointment of permanent liaison officers?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Visits of British naval officers and petty officers to American units in British waters have taken place. British Army officers and N.C.O.s are attached to American Field Force formation and vice versa. Personnel from the American Forces attend nearly all the courses of instruction run by the British Army in this country. There is also a considerable interchange of Air Force personnel for purposes of mutual assistance.

Captain Anstruther-Gray: Is the Prime Minister aware that, as far as attachments are concerned, this is not being done on a very large scale and that nothing is more important than that the officers of both sides should learn to appreciate the methods of their Allies?

The Prime Minister: I should think it probable that the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend and the answer which has been given will lead to an extension of the scale on which this process is being applied.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALLIED FORCES (UNIFIED CONTROL)

Major C. S. Taylor: asked the Prime Minister (1) whether he has any further statement to make upon the desirability of appointing a commander


in-chief, having operational control of all three Services, for every theatre of operations in which British troops are engaged;
(2) whether the appointment of a commander-in-chief of the Allied Forces is contemplated; and whether discussions have taken place between His Majesty's Government and our American Allies on this subject?

Sir T. Moore: asked the Prime Minister (1) what progress has been made in establishing unified control of the Fighting Services in each area of war operations;
(2) whether it is intended to set up a supreme war council for the general direction of the whole war effort of the United Nations; or how it is proposed to coordinate our strategic aims?

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Prime Minister whether, owing to the success of the recent combined operation at Dieppe, he will consider the appointment of a single officer to co-ordinate and exploit the offensive spirit and determination of all branches of our Forces and those of our Allies now stationed in this country?

The Prime Minister: All these Questions raise matters which are of considerable interest and which frequently engage the attention of thoughtful persons. They have often been debated in the past, and I have no doubt will be again. I have however no announcement of a special or constructive character to make upon any of them, although it is possible I may refer to some of them in the course of my speech.

Mr. Shinwell: Are the units of the American Air Force in this country and the American troops under American control exclusively or under British control?

The Prime Minister: I could not answer that Question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIBYA (BRITISH TANK LOSSES)

Captain Anstruther-Gray: asked the Prime Minister the number of British tanks that were destroyed by the Germans in Libya on 13th June, with a view to correcting public misconception on this matter; and who informed him that some 230 British tanks were lost in that one day's fighting?

The Prime Minister: My statement that 230 tanks were lost on 13th June was based on a misreading of the terms of the telegram from the Middle East. According to the latest information, about 200 tanks were lost over a period of about a week. It is not possible to say exactly how many were lost on 13th June, but the bulk of the losses probably took place on that and the previous day.

Captain Anstruther-Gray: Is it not a pity that the truth was not made public sooner, instead of allowing people to believe, for three whole months, that on 13th June there had been a sort of Balaclava charge in which we lost 230 tanks in an ambush, because that was a grave injustice both to our leaders and to the training of the Royal Armoured Corps?

The Prime Minister: I always do my best to give the House the fullest and the earliest information possible, and on this occasion I acted in an entirely bona fide manner. I gave the best information in my possession, and I cannot feel myself at all blameworthy in the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIEPPE OPERATIONS (CASUALTIES)

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Prime Minister the total casualties sustained by our troops in the recent successful combined operation at Dieppe; and whether any estimate is available of probable enemy casualties?

The Prime Minister: It is not the practice to give exact figures of casualties in men or material sustained in individual operations, and I see no reason to depart from this practice in the present instance.

Oral Answers to Questions — SECOND FRONT

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered a letter from the National Union of Distributive and Allied Workers, Yorkshire Division, demanding the immediate opening of a second front in Europe and pledging its fullest support and cooperation for its ultimate success; and what answer has he returned?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Member sent me a copy of the communication to which he refers; its receipt was acknowledged.

Mr. Gallacher: Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to inform me, and the House, what form the acknowledgment took, and whether he proposes to do anything about it? [Interruption].

Major Petherick: Does not the Question raise matters whose military and strategical value may be very great, and is the right hon. Gentleman willing—[Interruption].

Mr. Gallacher: I am trying to be as pleasant as I can. [Interruption]. Surely I can have an answer?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must accept the answer given.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONDUCT OF THE WAR (SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ADVICE)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he proposes to instruct the Scientific Advisory Committee to inquire into the higher direction of our scientific war effort?

The Lord President of the Council (Sir John Anderson): No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Production has, however, had the benefit of the advice of the Scientific and Engineering Advisory Committees in the selection of three men of scientific and technical eminence whom he has recently appointed to his staff on a whole-time basis.

Mr. Bellenger: Does my right hon. Friend understand that this matter should not be limited to one Department of State alone, but should be spread over the whole conduct of the war, and has he any statement to make in respect of that?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir.

Following is the statement showing rate of annual interest at which certain belligerent nations are borrowing for the purpose of financing their war expenditures.


—
For 12 months or less.
For a period over 12 months and not more than 10 years.
For 10 years or more.


United Kingdom
…
…
1%*
2½%†
3%†


U.S.A.
…
…
½% (average)
1½%
2½%


Russia‡
…
…
—
—
4% tax free


China§
…
…
5%
4% and 6%
—


Germany
…
…
2⅛% to 2⅞%
—
3½%


Italy
…
…
3¼% to 5%
about 5·4%
—


* Approximate average for year ended 30th June, 1942.


† Excluding "small savings" securities.


‡The latest Russian loan was for 20 years and was divided into two parts—(1) a lottery loan for general subscription carrying prizes equivalent to interest at 4 per cent. per annum, and (2) an issue for artels and co-operative organisations carrying interest at 2 per cent. All the bonds of the loan and the incomes from them, including prizes, are exempt from all taxes.


§According to information given by Chinese Ministry of Finance.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH SUBJECTS, SIAMESE SERVICE (PENSIONS)

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that British subjects who have retired from Siamese service have had their pensions stopped; that the amount of pensions payable is £25,000 per annum and that there are frozen Siamese assets available in Great Britain for £15,000,000; and whether he will release sufficient money to pay the pensions of these people, many of whom were appointed under the Anglo-Siamese Treaty of 1909, the American Government having already acted on these lines?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): This question has been carefully and sympathetically considered on a number of occasions, but I have been advised that His Majesty's Government have no power to adopt the course suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Belligerent Nations (Borrowing Terms)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will circulate a statement showing the terms on which the belligerent nations are borrowing for the purpose of financing their war expenditures?

Sir K. Wood: I am circulating a statement giving the information asked for in the case of this country, the United States, Russia, China, Germany and Italy.

Officers' Uniforms (Purchase Tax)

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of his recent decision to remove the Purchase Tax from utility clothing, he will now consider extending this concession to the uniforms of officers in the Services?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. I am afraid that I could not agree to adopt this suggestion; I do not think that the concessions made for utility clothing would justify a reversal of the decision previously reached with regard to uniforms.

Sir H. Williams: Is the abolition of the Purchase Tax a bribe to induce people to buy utility clothing?

Old Age Pensions

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Prime Minister whether he has considered a letter from the Lumphinnans Co-operative Women's Guild calling upon the Government to grant the full demands of the old age pensioners for 30s. per week and the abolition of the means test now operating; and what answer he has returned?

The Prime Minister: The communication referred to by the hon. Member was received and acknowledged. I cannot add to the statements made on behalf of the Government in the course of the Debate on 29th July.

Motor Vehicle Tax (Loss of Revenue)

Sir G. Broadbridge: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated loss of revenue to the Government to date, and annually, due to licensed vehicles having been laid aside for want of the necessary motive power?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): I have been asked to reply. I regret that I will not be able to give my hon. Friend the information for which he asks until the returns of licences current at the end of August have been received and analysed. These returns are not at present published, but I will send my hon. Friend the figures he wants as soon as they are ready.

Double Taxation

Colonel Arthur Evans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is proposed to extend the Convention and Protocol between Canada and the United

States of America for the avoidance of double taxation to Great Britain?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. The provisions of our taxation law allow of double taxation agreements with other countries for the reciprocal exemption of profits arising from shipping and air transport and certain agencies, and under these provisions an agreement is in force with the United States since 1924 for the exemption of shipping profits. The double taxation agreement to which my hon. Friend refers covers a much wider field and proceeds on a different principle, and having regard to the different circumstances and different considerations obtaining in the case of the United Kingdom I could not entertain my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Colonel Evans: Having regard, in view of the present circumstances, to the similar difficulties experienced by the citizens of Canada and the United Kingdom in relation to income derived in the United States of America, will my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter?

Sir K. Wood: I appreciate that aspect of the matter, but as my hon. and gallant Friend knows he was here asking me whether I could extend the protocol between Canada and the United States.

Billeting Allowance

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the statement in Command Paper 6385 that the charge in a typical Government hostel is 27s. 6d. per week for lodging and partial board, he will authorise an increase in the maximum allowance of £1 1s. payable for the board and lodging of a billeted person?

Sir K. Wood: The 27s. 6d. a week referred to in the White Paper represents what munition workers customarily paid for board and lodgings in the munition areas. It is therefore a commercial or market figure. The guinea paid to billetors of civil servants is not of this nature. Like other billeting payments, it is intended to reimburse the householder for the expense to which he is put. As my right hon. and gallant Friend the Financial Secretary stated on 19th February, in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir L. Lyle), I do not think that any revision of the billeting guinea is called for.

Sir J. Mellor: My right hon. Friend has put forward the figure of 27s. 6d. per week in justification of the scale of Army pay and allowances; would it hot, therefore, be quite right to compare that figure with the figure paid to persons who are required to billet evacuees?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir; that is repeating the Question, and I can only repeat my answer.

Artificial Limbs (Income Tax Relief)

Mr. Neil Maclean: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the increasing number of working people who have to provide themselves with an artificial limb or surgical boots at their own expense; and whether, as no allowance is made at present in relief from Income Tax for renewals or repairs, he will consider the hardship of those people and make a provision for relief from Income Tax where such expense is found necessary by those who have to incur such expenses to enable them to carry on their occupation?

Sir K. Wood: I fear that I cannot undertake to propose an amendment of the Income Tax law to afford special relief in case such as those to which my hon. Friend refers. Suggestions have been made from time to time in the past for special allowances in respect of expenses arising out of illness and disability, but however much sympathy may be felt with such cases it has been necessary to adhere to the principle that the Income Tax cannot be adjusted so as to take into account the varying circumstances of individual taxpayers.

Mr. Maclean: Is it not the case that men who lost a leg in the last war are now being charged Income Tax on the amounts they need to spend to renew their artificial limb to enable them to earn the income on which they are paying the tax, and will he not reconsider the matter, because I am confident that he will have the support of this House?

Sir K. Wood: I appreciate the case my hon. Friend puts forward, but I do not think it can be met through Income Tax.

National Debt (Interest Charge).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton Pownall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the annual interest charge on the National Debt now; and the comparable figure at

its highest point during or after the last war?

Sir K. Wood: The estimated cost of interest and management of the National Debt included in the Fixed Debt Charge for the current year is £325,000,000, and in addition £20,800,000 will be provided outside the Fixed Debt Charge for interest on moneys raised under the Defence Loans Acts. The highest comparable total annual charge during or after the last war was £328,043,000 in the year 1920–21.

Armed Forces (Pay and Allowances)

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the compilation of the recently-issued White Paper on Pay and Allowances of the Armed Forces, inquiries were made both of members of the rank and file and of selected families as to whether the present system was regarded as working satisfactorily and proving adequate?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir. Inquiries of this kind would not have been relevant to the compilation of the White Paper, which does not attempt to prejudge the question of the adequacy of the present system or otherwise. The object of the White Paper is to provide certain material relevant to the formation of a judgment on that matter.

Miss Rathbone: Could the Chancellor get in touch with the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families Association, which is in touch daily with hundreds of thousands of families of members of the Armed Forces, and which knows that the women with children are in many cases finding it almost impossible to make both ends meet?

Sir K. Wood: That is another matter. It does not arise out of this Question.

Mr. De la Bère: If it is another matter and an important matter, why not deal with that important matter?

Entertainments Duty (Cinema Charges)

Mr. R. Morgan: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the proportion of Entertainments Duty in cinema charges of 2s. 6d., 3s., 3s. 6d., 4s. 6d., 5s., and 8s.; and how this proportion compares with the proportion before the imposition of the last increase of the Entertainments Duty?

Sir K. Wood: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table:


Admission charge including Entertainments Duty.
Proportion of duty in admission charge.


Now.
Before last increase.



s.
d.
%
%


2
6
33.33
23.33


3
0
36.11
25.00


3
6
*
26.19


4
6
40.74
24.07


5
0
*
25.00


8
0
39.58



* Inclusive charges of these amounts do not (or did not in the case of the 8s. price) fit in with the scale of duties, and so far as is known prices are not charged at these rates.

Fiduciary Note Issue

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what financial operation had to be undertaken on 28th July before increasing the fiduciary note issue by £50,000,000; what is the present annual charge of servicing the securities which back the total note issue, and to whom is this paid?

Sir K. Wood: When the fiduciary issue was increased by £50,000,000 on 28th July last, securities of the value of £50,000,000 were acquired by the Issue Department of the Bank of England from the Banking Department in exchange for a corresponding amount of notes. The gross income from the securities held against the note issue is received in the first instance by the Issue Department of the Bank, and the net profit, after deduction of the expenses of the note issue, is paid over to the Treasury. The amount of such net profit to the Treasury for the year ended 31st August, 1942, was £8,228,259 10s. 3d.

National Savings Groups

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of savings groups upon the latest date recorded and the number on the corresponding date of 1941 for the United Kingdom; what was the cost of the advertising undertaken by the National

Savings Committee for the year ended 31st June, 1942, and the comparative figure for 31st June, 1941; and what were the management, executive and clerical expenses for the year ended June, 1942, and the comparative figure for June, 1941?

Sir K. Wood: With my hon. Friend's permission I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is the Chancellor satisfied with the organisation of the National Savings Committee, and has the time not arrived when it should be completely reorganised?

Sir K. Wood: No, I do not accept that suggestion at all. Like all other organisations, it is no doubt capable of improvement, but it has met with great success.

Mr. A. Edwards: Is it not a fact that thousands of people are completely wasting their time in these efforts?

Following is the statement:

(a) National Savings Groups



1941.
1942


Number of Groups in existence at 31st August
227,500
291,620


Estimated total membership of groups
13,282,000
16,664,000

(b) Cost of War Savings Campaign.
The following figures relate to the cost of the Campaign conducted by the three National Savings Committees and the Post Office, and do not include the cost of issuing or managing Government Securities:—

Year ended 30th June



1941
1942



£000


(1) Advertising and Publicity
704
687


(2) Administration
353
501


(3) Accommodation and Stationery
109
131


Total
1,166
1,319


Cost of Campaign per £100 subscribed during the period
1s. 6d.
1s. 6d.

Warship Weeks

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from what source the difference between the £141,000,000, which was subscribed in the 1,178 warship weeks through channels especially designed for the small investor, and the total subscription of £546,000,000 came?

Sir K. Wood: The information asked for by my hon. Friend could not, I am afraid, be obtained without a wholly disproportionate amount of labour as it would involve a detailed examination of the subscriptions received during each Warship Week.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE (RESPONSIBILITY)

Mr. Purbrick: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, with a view to reducing the rigidity of mind and the habit of reference from one official in the Civil Service to another, he will decentralise responsibility, placing more responsibility on officials to act on their own initiative, making them more self-reliant and so speed up official methods?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Crookshank): I cannot accept the generalisation in the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, but as regards his actual suggestion the responsibility for the organisation of Departments rests, of course, with the appropriate Ministers, and I am sure that they may be relied upon to take all the steps necessary for the speedy despatch of business.

Mr. Purbrick: Are we to take it from that reply that the Government are opposed to rationing red tape?

Captain Crookshank: I could not hear that.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Staff Officers (Age)

Mr. Liddall: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in order to give younger men of executive ability a chance of increased responsibility and to allow for the infusion of new ideas, he will review the case for the continued retention of each of the 59 Staff officers over the age of 61 and simultaneously consider whether he can still further reduce the age of the 136 higher military appointments in the War Office, seeing that only 21 of these are held by officers under 45 years of age?

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): The position of all Staff officers is continuously under review, and as my hon. Friend is aware a special review of all officers over 45 was made under a recent Army Council Instruction.

My hon. Friend will however appreciate that in order to make the fullest use of man-power, it is generally desirable to employ the younger officers in the more active appointments.

Cadet Corps (Kensington)

Captain Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that there is no unit of the Army Cadet Corps in Kensington and the establishment of one is forbidden because the ceiling of 4,500 for the County of London has been reached; and whether he will forthwith increase the numbers of cadets allowed in London to at least the figure allowed for the Air Training Corps?

Sir William Davison: asked the Secretary of State for War to what extent the refusal of an application asking that a new company of the Army Cadet Corps might be formed in Kensington, as a number of Kensington boys are anxious to join such a corps was due to the fact that uniform was not available; and whether, in order not to discourage boys who are anxious to become cadets, arrangements will be made for the approval of additional units with official brassards in lieu of uniform, pending the time when the proper uniform can be supplied?

Sir J. Grigg: I understand that the County of London Cadet Committee, who would be responsible for the organisation and administration of a unit in Kensington, have never been asked to start one there. They could not now do so for the reason mentioned in the former Question. Not only the supply position but also the difficulty of finding and training a sufficient number of suitable leaders is a limiting factor upon the size of the Army Cadet Force, which would make difficult the adoption of the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison). I am, however, keeping the position constantly under review.

Captain Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all the difficulties mentioned by him could be easily got over, and will he reconsider the position so far as Kensington is concerned?

Sir J. Grigg: I do not think that is the case. I do not think that Kensington can of its own volition solve the problem of finding uniforms and equipment.

Sir W. Davison: Is it not a great pity to damp down the keenness of these boys? Could not some form of brassard be given to them pending equipment being available? How is it that the Air Training Corps can have some 20,000 to 30,000 boys and still be willing to take them on?

Sir J. Grigg: My information is that it would be a bad thing to form units in advance of the availability of equipment and uniforms.

Sir W. Davison: The Air Training Corps have some 30,000 boys and equipment and uniform are available for them.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is it not a much worse thing to damp down the enthusiasm of the youths in this case?

Sir W. Davison: Will this matter be reconsidered in the near future?

Air Defences, Great Britain (Officers)

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Secretary of State for War how many regular soldiers with the rank of Brigadier or higher are employed at the present time in Air Defences, Great Britain, services; and whether he will more usefully employ such officers on overseas service and fill their present positions in this country by Territorial officers?

Sir J. Grigg: It is not in the public interest to give this information, but a considerable proportion of officers of the rank of Brigadier and upwards employed in the Air Defence of Great Britain are Territorials. I cannot accept the suggestion in the last part of the Question that regular officers, in the higher ranks, employed on the Air Defence of Great Britain could necessarily be more usefully employed elsewhere.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business for the present series of Sittings?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): The Business for to-day is as follows: A Motion for an Address of Condolence to His Majesty on the death of Air Commodore H.R.H. the Duke of Kent will be proposed, and a Message of sympathy to H.R.H. the Duchess of Kent. Afterwards the Committee stage of the Supplementary Vote of Credit for War Expenditure will be taken. My

right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make a statement on the War Situation, and a Debate will take place.
The Government felt that it would be meeting the wishes of the House to allow two days for the War Debate, and, therefore, it is proposed to continue the Debate on the Second Sitting Day. In view of this arrangement we shall sit an additional day during the present series of Sittings.
Third Sitting Day—A Debate on Service pay will take place on the Report stage of the Supplementary Vote of Credit. We shall also ask the House to take the Motions to approve the Purchase Tax (Exemptions) (Nos. 3 and 4) Orders.
Fourth Sitting Day—We shall ask the House to agree to pass the special Consolidated Fund Bill through all its stages. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make a statement on the Second Reading of the Bill. Those Questions already on the Paper for the Fourth Sitting Day will be answered on the Fourth Sitting Day of the present series of Sittings unless Members inform the Table that they wish their Questions to be postponed.
It may be convenient if I inform the House that the Government propose on the next Sitting Day to move a Motion providing for a further Adjournment of the House at the end of the present series of Sittings.

Mr. Maxton: Is there any proposal for any time to be allowed during this series of Sittings for a discussion of the Indian position?

Sir S. Cripps: My right hon. Friend will make a statement on the next Sitting Day. It is not proposed to allot any time for a discussion in this series of Sittings.

Mr. Maxton: Do I understand that the Prime Minister, apart from his general survey to-day, is making a separate statement about India?

Sir S. Cripps: After Question time on the next Sitting Day.

Mr. Maxton: Then there will be no opportunity for discussion. Is that the considered opinion of the Government?

Sit S. Cripps: Any Debate on that subject would not be in Order on the Vote of Credit.

Lieutenant Butcher: Will the Government open the Debate on Service pay and allowances?

Sir S. Cripps: It is not proposed that the Government should open that Debate.

Mr. Greenwood: Would it not be possible, should the House so desire, that the matter could be raised on the Adjournment on the Fourth Sitting Day?

Sir S. Cripps: Any matter can be raised on the Adjournment on the Fourth Sitting Day after the Business has been completed.

Mr. Maxton: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain to me how it would not be in Order to discuss the Indian question on the Vote of Credit?

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot give a Ruling on that matter. It is obviously a matter for Mr. Speaker. I understand that it would not be in Order because the Vote of Credit is concerned with the carrying-on of the war only.

Mr. Maxton: I now turn to you, Mr. Speaker, as the proper authority on these matters. May I ask you whether, on the discussion on the Vote of Credit, it would be quite proper for Members of this House to raise the question of the recent happenings in India?

Mr. Speaker: It would no doubt be in Order on an ordinary Vote of Credit, but on a Vote of Credit on a specific matter it would not be in Order to raise some other subject.

Sir Richard Acland: Surely, in a Debate on the carrying-on of the war, we can discuss the carrying-on of the war in relation to India, when there is a possibility of fighting in India? Will no portion whatever of that £1,000,000,000 be spent in India?

Mr. Speaker: That would be a question for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer say whether any of that £1,000,000,000 is being expended on military purposes in India?

Sir K. Wood: I should say that it is; but, obviously, I would like to have notice of that Question.

Mr. Sorensen: Seeing that no time is to be available in this series of Sittings for a discussion on the all-important question of India, could not the Government arrange that part of the Fourth Sitting Day shall be allocated to a discussion on that subject?

Sir S. Cripps: The hon. Member knows that the question of what is taken on the Adjournment is not a matter for the Government, but a matter for Mr. Speaker

Mr. Shinwell: In connection with the Business on the Third Sitting Day, is it intended to suspend the Rule?

Sir S. Cripps: If the House generally desires it and representations are made through the usual channels, the time can be extended.

Mr. Sorensen: As no time is available during the present series of Sittings for a discussion on the Indian situation, can we have an assurance from the Government that when the House returns a day will be set aside for such a discussion in the first series of Sittings?

Sir S. Cripps: I am sure that if the House, desires it the Government will be prepared to give time on the return of the House for a discussion on the Indian situation.

NEW MEMBERS SWORN

Thomas Judson Brooks, Esquire, M.B.E., for the County of York, West Riding (Rothwell Division).

Walter James Edwards, Esquire, for the Borough of Stepney (Whitechapel and St. George's Division).

William Henry Guy, Esquire, for the Borough of Poplar (South Poplar Division).

Thomas William Burden, Esquire, for the Borough of Sheffield (Park Division).

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE

Sir John Wardlaw-Milne reported from the Select Committee on National Expenditure, pursuant to the Order of the House (19th November), That they had addressed a Memorandum to the Prime Minister for the consideration of the War Cabinet.

DEATH OF AIR COMMODORE HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE KENT

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to express the deep concern of this House on the loss which His Majesty has sustained by the death on active service of Air Commodore His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Edmund, Duke of Kent, and to condole with His Majesty on this melancholy occasion;
and to assure His Majesty that this House shares the general feeling of sorrow for the heavy bereavement which His Majesty and His Majesty's Family have sustained by the death of a Prince who was regarded with universal affection and esteem by His Majesty's subjects, and will ever participate with the most affectionate and dutiful attachment in whatever may concern the feelings and interests of His Majesty.
I also propose to move a second Motion:
That this House do condole with Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent on the great loss which Her Royal Highness has sustained by the death on active service of Air Commodore His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent.
The loss of this gallant and handsome Prince, in the prime of his life, has been a shock and a sorrow to the people of the British Empire, standing out lamentably even in these hard days of war. To His Majesty the King it is the loss of a dearly-loved brother, and it has affected him most poignantly. I knew the late Duke of Kent from his childhood, and had many opportunities of meeting him during the war, both at the Admiralty and thereafter. His overpowering desire was to render useful service to his King and country in this period when we are all of us on trial.
There are difficulties which attend a King's brother and of which those who are not of an exalted station can hardly be aware. But the Duke of Kent was ready to waive his rank, to put aside all ceremony, and to undergo any amount of discomfort and danger or, what is harder still, of monotonous routine conscientiously performed, in order to feel quite sure that he was making a real contribution to our national struggle for life and honour. The field he made his own was that of the welfare and comfort of the Royal Air Force, which entailed an immense amount of work and travelling and yet yielded a continuous and useful result to which the personal qualities of the

Duke contributed markedly. It was while performing these duties as an Air Commodore, he having given up his previous rank of Air Marshal, that the hazards of the air claimed their forfeit. He and all his companions save one were dashed instantaneously to death.
There is something about death on active service which makes it different from common or ordinary death in the normal course of nature. It is accepted without question by the fighting men. Those they leave behind them are also conscious of a light of sacrifice and honour which plays around the grave or the tomb of the warrior. They are, for the time being, uplifted. This adds to their fortitude, but it does not in any way lessen their pain. Nothing can fill the awful gap, nothing can assuage or comfort the loneliness and deprivation which fall upon the wife and children when the prop and centre of their home is suddenly snatched away. Only faith in a life after death in a brighter world where dear ones will meet again—only that and the measured tramp of time can give consolation.
The Duke of Kent had a joyous union and a happy family. The British people are devoted believers in their ancient Monarchy, regarding it as one of the bulwarks of their liberties and one of the essential elements in their constitutional processes. They, therefore, always follow with solicitude the joys and sorrows of the Royal Family, and they rejoiced in the spectacle of this happy home. I speak here in this famous Assembly, the champion and the successful practiser of democratic government, in this Assembly elected on universal suffrage, and I say without hesitation that all our thoughts go out in sympathy to Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, the beautiful and stricken Princess who, in her turn, tastes the bitter tribulation which war brings to so many. That she may make a home for herself and her children here in the hearts of the British nation is the fervent wish of the House of Commons and of all those for whom the House of Commons has the right to speak.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I rise to second the Motion for the Address to His Majesty moved in such eloquent and very moving terms by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We all heard with the deepest regret of the


death of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent on active service. He had won esteem and admiration among the people of this country, not only for his distinguished services during this great struggle, but for the deep interest he took in our industrial life and in the social welfare of our people. We express our deep sympathy to His Majesty the King and to the Royal Family. Our hearts go out to Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent and her children in the cruel loss which has befallen them. In peace and in war the widowed and the orphaned demand universal sympathy. In Royal Household and in humble cottage alike, the poignant grief of a bereaved wife with young children around her is inexpressible. We all trust that Her Royal Highness will gather strength from her sorrow to sustain and inspire her children for that public service which dominated the life of His Royal Highness. I would add one further sentence. To the relatives of the Duke's companions we must also extend our heartfelt sympathy in the heavy loss they have suffered through the tragedy which has deprived this country of brave men and valued citizens.

Sir Percy Harris: May I be allowed to associate my hon. Friends and myself with the eloquent tribute paid by the Prime Minister and so well supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood)? It is only a few months since I supported a similar Motion on the death of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught, but in that case there was this vital difference. The Duke of Connaught had reached a ripe old age and had a long life of public service behind him, while the Duke of Kent, who promised to rival him in good work, was cut down in the very prime of his life. It seems only the other day that, with all the pomp and circumstance associated with a Royal wedding, the Duke married that gracious lady who is now left a widow with three small children, and I am sure the sympathy of the whole people goes out to her all the more because she was originally a stranger within our gates. The whole nation is in this war. There is scarcely a family in the land which has not a husband, a brother or a son facing the dangers and risks of war. That makes our sympathy and understanding of the

Royal bereavement all the greater, and I am sure the nation therefore would want us, as their representatives, to express their feelings, so well stated by the Prime Minister and embodied in this Motion.

Mr. McGovern: On behalf of my colleagues and myself I want to say that we regret that this specific Motion has been put down by the Prime Minister, in relation only to the Prince who has been, unfortunately, killed. We do not wish to say anything that would take away from sympathy with the anguish that must be felt by the widow of the Royal Prince. We know that death brings its sting to every quarter, no matter how high or how low a person may be placed.
At a time during war when large numbers of men are being done to death in excruciating anguish and pain on every field of struggle, on the sea, by bombs from the air, and on the battlefield, we regret that the Prime Minister did not embody in his Motion sympathy for the whole of the bereaved parents, relatives and friends who have lost loved ones in this war. I know that sympathy is a grand thing, often the only thing that can be conveyed to people in their sorrow and in their anguish, but we do feel that it comes even worse to those who are steeped in poverty very often and in slums, because poverty and bereavement are two very evil companions when they are jointly associated with a death.
While we do not take away from anything the Prime Minister says in regard to the death even of a Royal Prince, we do say that, associated with that message, there should have been an expression of regret to every family in the land. Therefore, I only protest in so far as no expression has been given by the Prime Minister to those in lowly places throughout the land, and I regret it especially that on the B.B.C., on the morning that I heard it, mention was made only of the Royal Prince, and no reference was made to the companions who were associated with him. I am glad to know that on this occasion death was swift and that no suffering ensued, and I only want to protest against the failure to include all those who have suffered likewise throughout the land.

Question put, and agreed to, nemine contradicente.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty to express the deep concern of this House at the loss which His Majesty has sustained by the death on active service of Air Commodore His Royal Highness Prince George Edward Alexander Edmund, Duke of Kent, and to condole with His Majesty on this melancholy occasion; and to assure His Majesty that this House shares the general feeling of sorrow for the heavy bereavement which His Majesty and His Majesty's Family have sustained by the death of a Prince who was regarded with universal affection and esteem by His Majesty's subjects, and will ever participate with the most affectionate and dutiful attachment in whatever may concern the feelings and interests of His Majesty.

To be presented by Privy Counsellors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Resolved, nemine contradicente,
That this House do condole with Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent on the great loss which Her Royal Highness has sustained by the death on active service of Air Commodore His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent."—[The Prime Minister.]

Ordered,
That a Message of Condolence be sent to Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, and that Miss Lloyd George, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Pethick-Lawrence, and Sir Hugh O'Neill do attend Her Royal Highness with the said Message."—The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE OF CREDIT, 1942

EXPENDITURE ARISING OUT OF THE WAR

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £1,000,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, towards defraying the expenses which may be incurred during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1943, for general Navy, Army and Air Services and supplies in so far as specific provision is not made therefor by Parliament; for securing the public safety, the defence of the realm, the maintenance of public order and the efficient prosecution of the war; for maintaining supplies and services essential to the life of the community; and generally for all expenses, beyond those provided for in the ordinary Grants of Parliament, arising out of the existence of a state of war.

Orders of the Day — WAR SITUATION

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): Nine weeks have passed since I spoke here on the Vote of Censure. I am most grateful to the House for the substantial majority which they then gave to me and to the Government. Every proof that is given to the world of the inflexible steadfastness of Parliament and of its sense of proportion strengthens the British war effort in a definite and recognisable manner. Most particularly are such manifestations of our national will-power a help to the head of the British Government in time of war. The Prime Minister of the day, as head of the Executive, has to be from time to time in contact and correspondence with the Heads of the Executives of the great Allied States. President Roosevelt and Premier Stalin are not only Heads of the Executive but are Commanders-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. We work our affairs in a different way. The Prime Minister is the servant of the House and is liable to dismissal at a moment's notice by a simple vote. It is only possible for him to do what is necessary, and what has got to be done on occasion by somebody or other, if he enjoys, as I do, the support of an absolutely loyal and united Cabinet, and if he is refreshed and fortified from time to time, and especially in bad times, as I have been, by massive and overwhelming Parliamentary majorities. Then your servant is able to transact the important business which has to be done with confidence and freedom, and is able to meet people at the heads of the Allied countries on more or less equal terms, and on occasion to say "Yes" and "No" without delay upon some difficult questions. Thus we arrive, by our ancient constitutional methods, at practical working arrangements which show that Parliamentary democracy can adapt itself to all situations and can go out in all weathers. That is why I am especially grateful to the House for their unswerving support and for the large majority with which they rejected a hostile vote on the last occasion we were together.
Since that day and since the House separated there have been several important operations of war. The first of these has been the carrying into Malta of a convoy of supplies sufficient to ensure the life and resistance of that heroic island fortress for a good many months


to come. This operation was looked forward to with a certain amount of anxiety on account of the great dangers to which many of His Majesty's most valuable ships must be exposed. For this purpose a powerful battle squadron, supported by three aircraft carriers trained to work in combination, and by powerful cruiser squadrons and flotillas were set in motion through the Straits of Gibraltar. At the same time the Malta Air Force was raised to a very high level of strength by the flying through of Spitfires from other carriers, so that an effective protective umbrella was spread around the island for a considerable distance and the local command of the air was effectively assured. The convoy was thus able to force its way through the extraordinary dangers which beset its passage from Sardinia onwards. Three or four hundred German and Italian shore-based bombers, torpedo planes and long-range fighters were launched against our armada—an enormous concourse of ships—and in the narrows, which were mined, it was attacked by E-boats and U-boats. Severe losses were suffered both by the convoy and the escorting fleet. One aircraft-carrier, the "Eagle," two cruisers and one destroyer were sunk and others damaged. But this price, although heavy, was not excessive for the result obtained, for Malta is not only as bright a gem as shines in the King's Crown, but its effective action against the enemy communications with Libya and Egypt is essential to the whole strategic position in the Middle East. In the same operation one eight-inch Italian cruiser and one six-inch Italian cruiser were torpedoed and badly damaged and two U-boats were sunk. A most remarkable feature of this fighting was undoubtedly the defeat by gunfire, and by aircraft of the carriers, of the enemy's shore-based aircraft. Fifty-six Axis aircraft were shot down for certain and 15 others were probably destroyed. Of these 39 were shot down by carrier-borne aircraft of the Fleet and 17 by the "Ack-Ack" guns of the ships of the convoy and of the escort. In addition, at least 16 were destroyed by aircraft from Malta, and all this loss was sustained by these very powerful shore-based squadrons, operating from bases in comparatively close proximity, without their being able to inflict by air action any appreciable damage upon the ships of

war or the supply ships of the convoy—a remarkable fact.
Although the loss of the "Eagle" at the outset of the operation affected the combination of the three carriers on which much store was set—which always seemed to me, personally, to be of the highest importance and a new feature—we must regard the whole episode as a further proof of the value of aircraft carriers working together in combination at sea and also of the increasing power of the gunnery of the fleet and of the merchant vessels, which were all armed to the teeth and fought with customary determination. All of this fleet and the whole operation was led with the utmost discipline and determination, reflecting the highest credit on all officers and men concerned, both of the Royal Navy and Mercantile Marine and upon the skilful admirals in charge—Admiral Syfret, Admiral Burrough and Admiral Lyster.
The second important operation was the attack upon Dieppe. It is a mistake to speak or write of this as "a Commando raid," although some Commando troops distinguished themselves remarkably in it. The military credit for this most gallant affair goes to the Canadian troops, who formed five-sixths of the assaulting force, and to the Royal Navy, which carried them all there and which carried most of them back. The raid must be considered as a reconnaissance in force. It was a hard, savage clash such as are likely to become increasingly numerous as the War deepens. We had to get all the information necessary before launching operations on a much larger scale. This raid, apart from its reconnaissance value, brought about an extremely satisfactory air battle in the West which Fighter Command wish they could repeat every week. It inflicted perhaps as much loss upon the enemy in killed and wounded as we suffered ourselves. I, personally, regarded the Dieppe assault, to which I gave my sanction, as an indispensable preliminary to full-scale operations. I do not intend to give any information about these operations, and I have only said as much as I have because the enemy can see by his daily reconnaissances of our ports many signs of movements that we are unable to conceal from his photography. He is also aware of the steady and rapid influx into this Island of United States divisions and other troops, but what he


does not know is how, when, where and with what forces and in what fashion he will be smitten. And on this point it is desirable that he should be left to his own ruminations, unassisted by British or American advice or comment.
Since the successful action off Midway Island, our American Allies, with the very active support of Australian Forces, have been engaged with the Japanese in the South-west Pacific, and in the course of these operations they have taken the offensive and occupied the Islands of Guadalcanal, Tulagi and other islands in the Solomons. They have, moreover, according to the reports which have already been seen in the Press, frustrated Japanese activities in Milne Bay. The fighting ashore, in which United States marines were prominent, and the fighting at sea have both been exceptionally bitter. In the fighting at sea His Majesty's Australian ship "Canberra" has been sunk, as has already been announced. His Majesty's Government considered that the Commonwealth Government should not bear this grievous loss, following the sinking of other gallant Australian ships. We have therefore decided to offer freely and unconditionally the transfer of His Majesty's eight-inch gun cruiser "Shropshire" to the Commonwealth Government. The offer has been most warmly received.
Since we were last together the tendencies of war have continued to move in our favour. Of the Russian Front, I will only at this moment say that it is the 8th of September. In other quarters the growing predominance of the Allied air power is continuous. From June onwards to the first week in September, just closed, we have discharged nearly double the bomb load upon Germany as was discharged in the corresponding period of last year, and that with much greater precision. A far larger proportion fell in built-up areas or hit the actual target. The United States daylight bombing is a new and increasingly important factor, and there is no doubt that both in accuracy of aim and in mutual defensive power new possibilities of air warfare are being opened by our American comrades and their Flying Fortresses.
The losses at sea are still very heavy, but I am glad to say that the months of July, August, and September so far as it has run, are a definite improvement

on those which preceded them. This is due largely to the continued development and completion of the convoy system off the American coast, and this improvement has been effected in spite of heavy losses in war operations, such as the Russian and Malta convoys.
During these same months, the line of new building of merchant ships of the United Nations has definitely crossed and maintained itself on the graph above the line of sinkings. Warfare—and this is even more important, because offence is more important than defence, however successful—warfare on U-boats has been more successful than at any former period in the war. In fact, very few days have passed without one or more being sunk or damaged by us or our Allies. One would, of course, expect the U-boats to suffer heavier losses as there are more of them about, and I cannot say that the sinkings of U-boats have nearly kept pace with the believed and planned new construction. On the other hand, our heavy and successful bombing of the German shipbuilding yards will have an increasing effect upon future output and assembly of U-boats, and the part which the air is taking in the U-boat warfare grows more important with every week that passes.
We must regard the struggle at sea as the foundation of all the efforts of the United Nations. If they lost that, all else would be denied to them, but there is no reason to suppose that we have not the means of victory in our hands, provided that the utmost in human power is done here and in the United States.
Lastly, we may note that the ruthless unlimited German U-boat warfare and the outrages to which this gave vent, have brought us a new Ally, and in the dawn of the fourth year of the war we welcome the accession of Brazil to the ranks of the United Nations. We are entitled to regard this as a most helpful and encouraging event.
Continued efforts are made by us and our Allies to unify and concert the command and action of the United Nations, and particularly of their leading members. These efforts are made in spite of all the obvious difficulties which geography can interpose. During the month of July, President Roosevelt sent a most important mission to this country. No announcement of this was made at the time. The mission comprised General Marshall, the


Head of the United States Army, Admiral King, the Head of the Navy, and Mr. Hopkins, the President's Personal Representative. These gentlemen met in numerous conferences, not only the British Chiefs of Staff, but the Members of the War Cabinet, and of the Defence Committee which is a somewhat smaller grouping of it. During a period of 10 days or more the whole field of the war was explored and every problem of importance in it was scrutinised and weighed. Decisions of importance were taken affecting the whole future general conduct of our operations not only in Europe but throughout the world. These decisions were in accordance with the wishes of President Roosevelt, and they received his final approval. Thus, by the end of July complete agreement on war policy and war plans had been reached between Great Britain and the United States. This agreement covers the whole field of the war in every part of the world, and also deals with the necessary productive and administrative measures which are required to enforce the combined policy and strategy which has been agreed upon.
Armed with this body of agreement between Great Britain and the United States, and invigorated by the good will of the House manifested at what was a particularly dark, unhappy and anxious moment, I took advantage of the Recess to visit the Army in the Middle East and to visit Premier Stalin in Moscow. Both these journeys seemed necessary in the public interest, and I believe that the results achieved, although now secret, will as they become apparent justify any trouble or expense incurred.
Travelling always in a Liberator bomber, it was possible to reach Cairo in an uncommonly short time. Before I left I had some reason to believe that the condition of the Desert Army and the troops in Egypt was not entirely satisfactory. The Eighth Army, or the Army of the Western Desert, or the Desert Army as I like to call it, had lost over 80,000 men. It had been driven back about 400 miles since May, with immense losses in munitions, supplies and transport, General Rommel's surprisingly rapid advance was only rendered possible because he used our captured stores and vehicles. In the battles around Gazala, in the stress of the retreat and the fighting

at El Alamein, where General Auchinleck succeeded in stabilising the front, the structure of the Army had become much deranged. The divisional formations had been largely broken up, and a number of battle groups or other improvised formations had sprung into being piecemeal in the course of the hard fighting. Nevertheless, as I can myself testify, there was a universal conviction in officers and men of every rank that they could beat the Germans man to man and face to face. But this was coupled with a sense of being baffled and of not understanding why so many misfortunes had fallen upon the Army. The spirit of the troops was admirable, but it was clear to me that drastic changes were required in the High Command and that the Army must have a new start under new leaders. I was fortified in these conclusions by the advice of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, who accompanied me, and also by the massive judgment of Field-Marshal Smuts, who flew from Cape Town to Cairo to meet me and also, of course, to see the South African divisions which he has sent into the line.
I, therefore, after many heart-searchings, submitted proposals to the War Cabinet for changing and remodelling the High Command. In these proposals, General Alexander, fresh from his brilliant uphill campaign in Burma—a most testing ordeal for any man—succeeded General Auchinleck, and General Gott, who was greatly trusted by the troops, was to command the Eighth Army. The Cabinet was in the act of endorsing these telegraphed recommendations when General Gott was killed by the enemy. I felt this very much, because I met him only the day before; I spent a long time in his company, and he seemed a most splendid man. General Montgomery, who now commands the Eighth Army, is one of our most accomplished soldiers, and we had need of him for certain purposes here at home. However, the imminent threat of battle in the Western Desert left us no choice but to call upon him. I am satisfied that the combination of General Alexander, as Commander-in-Chief, and General Montgomery under him commanding the Eighth Army, with General McCreery, an officer deeply versed in the handling of tanks, as Chief of the General Staff, is a team well adapted to our needs and the finest at our disposal at the


present time. There were, of course a number of other changes. It is always painful making such changes, but in wartime individual feelings cannot be spared, and whatever is thought to be the best arrangement must be made without regard to persons, and must be made quickly. I hope the House will not press me to argue these matters on merits in detail, as I certainly should not be able to comply with their wish without detriment to the public interest.
Of General Auckinleck I will only say that he is an officer of the greatest distinction and of a character of singular elevation. He wrested victory for us at the battle of Sidi Rezegh in November, and in the early days of July he stemmed the adverse tide at El Alamein. He has at present, at his own request, gone on leave, and it is my hope that his services may be available later on in the war.
In spite of the heavy losses which I mentioned, the Army of the Western Desert is now stronger actually and relatively than it has ever been. In fact, so large have the new reinforcements which have reached this Army been, that what is to a large extent a new Army has been created while the fighting has actually been in progress. The principal measures which rendered this possible were taken before the disaster of Tobruk, and, indeed, before the opening of the battle at Gazala in May. They were part of the general preparation which, looking ahead, we made for the hazards and stresses of the Desert campaign of 1942. As far back as March last I asked President Roosevelt to lend me shipping to transport an additional 40,000 or 50,000 men to the Middle East so as to have something to veer and haul upon, so as to have a force which could be turned to the various theatres in which danger might develop. The President consented and placed at our disposal a number of American ships, and in consequence at the critical moment we had rounding the Cape a very large and well-equipped force which could be directed immediately to Egypt. It is to that that the improvement in our affairs, the maintenance of our affairs, in that region must largely be attributed. Besides this a broadening stream of drafts to replace casualties, of equipment, tanks, anti-tank guns, "Ack-Ack" guns and vehicles of all kinds has been flowing from this country and from the United States to the Middle East, and we now

have in Egypt a very good, strong, well-equipped and resolute Army barring the further advance of the invader.
In the Debate on the Vote of Censure on Thursday, 2nd July, some of the Opposition speakers seemed to think that the fall of Cairo and Alexandria was only a matter of days. "Wait till Monday, wait till Tuesday," it was said, "and events will reinforce our criticisms." Well, we have waited, and now after more than two months I feel able to assure the House that they may be confident in our ability to maintain the successful defence of Egypt, not for days or for weeks, but for several months ahead. [Interruption.] I say several months ahead, but I might say more. Suffice it to say that.
I am strengthened in this view by the results of the heavy fighting of last week. Owing to the restraint and understatement which have been practised in the Middle East communiqués in deference to the taste of the House, the scale and intensity of these operations have not been realised, or have -only now begun to be realised. General Rommel has been much hampered by the sinkings of so many of his supply ships by our submarines, as well as by the British and United States air attacks renewed again from Malta and also from Egypt. Under the inconveniences resulting from their pressure as we may suppose, he came round our Southern flank last Monday week in a major offensive with the whole German Afrika Korps, including the 90th Light Division, the two Panzer divisions and a large part of the 20th Italian Motorised Corps. We have not been able to keep our left hand upon the Qattara depression, which dies away at this point to the Eastward, and there was plenty of room for Rommel to execute such a manoeuvre. The Desert Army under its new command had, however, been reorganised in depth and had been reinforced by every brigade, by every tank and by every gun that could be hurried forward from the Delta. I had the good fortune to visit the troops on exactly the ground where this battle took place, and I must say it seemed to me very obliging of General Rommel to have come on to us just where all the preparations had been made for his hearty reception.
This desert warfare has to be seen to be believed. Large armies, with their innumerable transport and tiny habitations,


are dispersed and scattered as if from a pepper-pot over the vast indeterminate slopes and plains of the desert, broken here and there only by a sandy crease of tuck in the ground or outcrop of rock. The ground in most places, especially on all commanding eminences, is rock with only an inch or two of sand on the top, and no cover can be obtained for guns or troops except by blasting. Scattered though the troops are, there is an elaborate system of signalling, the enormous development of which is incredible. The more improvements there are in our means of communication the more people are required to serve the Signals Branch. But owing to this elaborate system of signalling, in which tens of thousands of people are engaged, this army, scattered over these vast areas, can be moved and brought into action with extraordinary rapidity, and enormous distances can be covered by either side in what seemed a few years ago to be an incredibly short space of time.
It did not seem to our commanders that General Rommel would dare to bypass the desert Army, with its formidable armoured striking power, and push on to Cairo, and in this they were right; but in order that the desert Army should have the fullest freedom of manoeuvre a new Army has been brought into being along the line of the Nile and the Delta, where conditions prevail totally different from those which exist in the desert. In fact, you could not have a greater contrast in every military condition than is presented at the point where cultivation begins and the desert ends. Rommel was not, however, disposed to run the risk of going round and by-passing the Army, and he strove instead to repeat the tactics he had used at Gazala. He was met not only by British armour but by British artillery used on a scale hitherto unprecedented. We had many hundreds of 25-pounders, as good a field gun as exists in the world, as well as many hundreds of 6-pounder high velocity anti-tank guns in action. We had a good superiority in armour, though we were not quite equal in the heaviest-gunned tanks, and we had once again undoubted mastery in the air. The attack of the Axis army, which had been reinforced up to 12 divisions and had also very powerful artillery, with some superiority in medium guns, and powerful armoured

forces, was first brought to an abrupt standstill and then pressed slowly and steadily back with heavy losses of tanks and vehicles of all kinds. We are entitled to consider this last week's fighting as distinctly not unsatisfactory, especially when we compare it with what our position was 2½ months ago. As to the future, I can only say that the desert Army will welcome every opportunity of fighting that is offered to it and that further developments may be awaited with good heart by all who are watching events in that theatre.
The striking feature in this theatre is, of course, the outstanding strength and resiliency of our Air Force. Three-quarters of the Air Force is British, but there are also some most gallant and efficient Australian and South African squadrons and powerful United States air groups working with the Royal Air Force. Co-operation between the Air and the Army had been brought to the very highest degree in the days of General Auchinleck, and it is now renewed between Air Chief Marshal Tedder and General Alexander and Air Vice-Marshal Conyngham and General Montgomery. The Army and Air commanders in the field live and camp together in the same moving headquarters, and the Air Force rather than being divided among the troops is used as a whole in characteristic fashion for their benefit and, as far as I could see, not only for their benefit but to their very great satisfaction. The Air Force has played a decisive part throughout this campaign. Without its superior power, no one can say whether we should have got thus far. But the story is only half told and it would be inartistic to attempt to anticipate the further chapters which remain to be written.
Three times when I asked the question, "What do you think of the dive bombers?"—because I asked all sorts of questions of all sorts of people—I got the answer, "Which dive bombers?" from officers of different ranks. There is no doubt at all that our ground strafing aircraft and fighter bombers are achieving results at least equal to those of the Stukas without being vulnerable as the Stukas are when caught unprotected by their fighter escort. The most intense exertions have been made by all the air squadrons not only during the action but in the preparatory stages. I should not have thought it possible


that such a high percentage of sorties could be maintained without detriment to health and efficiency. Nothing could exceed however the efficiency and ardour of all the airmen whom I saw, and nothing could exceed the admiration and good will in which the Air Force is held by their comrades in the Army. I took pains while I was there to visit and inspect almost every large formation, not only those at the front but others which were preparing in the rear. I spent five days in this way and was most kindly received by the troops, to whom I explained the extraordinary importance and significance of their task and its bearing upon the issues of the whole war. Their life in the fierce light of the desert, with its cool strong breezes, is hard but healthy. I have never seen an Army which deserved victory more, and I await with confident hope the further unfolding of the scroll of fate.
Apart from the changes in the High Command, I reached the conclusion that the Middle East Command was too extensive in itself, and that General Auchin-leck had been unduly burdened by having to consider the problems of Persia and Iraq, some 600 or 700 miles away, at the same time that he had Rommel on his hands within 50 miles of Alexandria. I therefore obtained permission from my colleagues for the detaching of Persia and Iraq from the Middle Eastern Command and the making of a new and separate Command round the Tenth Army based on Basra and Baghdad. This sphere is given to Sir Henry Maitland-Wilson, who, from his command of the Ninth Army in Syria and Palestine, has already had opportunities of being thoroughly acquainted with the situation. The Tenth Army is being rapidly strengthened and, with the substantial Air Force which it will require, may eventually give support to the Russian left flank, and will in any case defend the soil of Persia.
During my visit to Cairo the Chief of the Imperial General Staff and I had the advantage of long consultations with General Wavell about India, with Lord Gort about Malta, and with General Platt about East Africa. In Cairo I was received by King Farouk and in Teheran by the Shah of Persia. Both these young rulers, who are also brothers-in-law, affirmed their loyalty to the cause of the United Nations, and the Shah of Persia was good enough to enter upon a most

able exposition of the solid reasons which make the interests of Persia identical with the victory of Britain and her Allies.
The main purpose of my journey was, however, to visit Premier Stalin in Moscow. This was accomplished in two long flights with a break at Teheran. We flew across the two mountain systems, each about 300 miles wide, which lie South of the Caspian Sea and between which spreads the plain and plateau of Persia. Some of these peaks go up to 18,000 or 19,000 feet, but as we flew by day we had no need to go higher than 13,000 feet. We flew across long stretches of the Caspian Sea up the Ural River towards Kuibyshev (formerly Samara) and reached Moscow in the afternoon.
In this part of my mission I was accompanied by Mr. Averell Harriman, President Roosevelt's personal representative. The House will see that it was a great advantage to me to have the support of this most able and forceful man who spoke with the august authority of the President of the United States. We spent four days in conferences with Premier Stalin and Mr. Molotov, sitting sometimes for five and six hours at a time, and we went into everything with the utmost candour and thoroughness. At the same time, the Chief of the Imperial General Staff and General Wavell, who accompanied me, had farther conferences with Marshals Voroshilov and Shaposhnikov and dealt with the more technical aspects of our joint affairs. Naturally I should not give any account of the subjects we discussed or still less of the conclusions which we reached. I have reported all these to the War Cabinet, and Mr. Harriman has reported them to President Roosevelt, but all must remain secret.
I may say, however, that the Russians do not think that we or the Americans have done enough so far to take the weight off them. This is not at all surprising, in view of the terrific onslaught which they are enduring and withstanding with such marvellous tenacity. No one in the last war would have deemed it possible that Russia could have stood up as she has been doing to the whole weight of the Teutonic armies. I say the whole weight, because, although there are 40 to 45 Germans divisions facing us in the West and holding down the subjugated countries, these numbers are more than made up against Russia by Finnish, Hungarian,


Rumanian and Italian troops who have been dragged by Hitler into this frightful welter. It is a proof of the increased strength which Premier Stalin has given to Russia that this prodigious feat of the resistance of Russia alone to the equivalent of the whole of the Teutonic Army has been accomplished for so long and with so great a measure of success. It is difficult to make the Russians comprehend all the problems of the sea and of the ocean. We are sea animals and the United States are to a large extent ocean animals. The Russians are land animals. Happily, we are all three air animals. It is difficult to explain fully all the different characteristics of the war effort of various countries, but I am sure that we made their leaders feel confidence in our loyal and sincere resolve to come to their aid as quickly as possible and in the most effective manner without regard to the losses or sacrifices involved so long as the contribution was towards victory.
It was an experience of great interest to me to meet Premier Stalin. The main object of my visit was to establish the same relations of easy confidence and of perfect openness which I have built up with President Roosevelt. I think that, in spite of the accident of the Tower of Babel, which persists as a very serious barrier in numerous spheres, I have succeeded to a considerable extent. It is very fortunate for Russia in her agony to have this great rugged war chief at her head. He is a man of massive outstanding personality, suited to the sombre and stormy times in which his life has been cast; a man of inexhaustible courage and will-power and a man direct and even blunt in speech, which, having been brought up in the House of Commons, I do not mind at all, especially when I have something to say of my own. Above all, he is a man with that saving sense of humour which is of high importance to all men and all nations, but particularly to great men and great nations. Stalin also left upon me the impression of a deep, cool wisdom and a complete absence of illusions of any kind. I believe I made him feel that we were good and faithful comrades in this war—but that, after all, is a matter which deeds not words will prove.
One thing stands out in my mind above all others from this visit to Moscow—the inexorable, inflexible resolve of Soviet

Russia to fight Hitlerism to the end until it is finally beaten down. Premier Stalin said to me that the Russian people are naturally a peaceful people, but the atrocious cruelties inflicted upon them by the Germans have roused them to such a fury of indignation that their whole nature is transformed.
As I flew back to Cairo across the vast spaces, back across the Caspian Sea and the mountain ranges and deserts, I bore with me the conviction that in the British Empire, the United States and the Soviet Union, Hitler has forged an alliance of partnership which is strong enough to beat him to the ground, and steadfast enough to persevere not only until his wickedness has been punished, but until some at least of the ruin he has wrought has been repaired.
We have recently been reminded that the third anniversary of the war has come and gone and that we are now entered upon the fourth year. We are indeed entitled, nay, bound to be thankful for the inestimable and measureless improvements in our position which have marked the last two years. From being all alone, the sole champion left in arms against Nazi tyranny, we are now among the leaders of a majestic company of States and nations, including the greatest nations of the world, the United States and Russia, all moving forward together until absolute victory is won, and not only won but established upon unshakable foundations. In spite of all the disappointing episodes, disasters and sufferings through which we have passed, our strength has grown without halt or pause, and we can see each day that not only our own power but the weight of the United States becomes increasingly effective in the struggle.
Apart from the physical and mortal dangers of the war through which we have made our way so far Without serious injury, there was a political danger which at one time seemed to me, at any rate, to be a formidable threat. After the collapse of France, when the German armies strode on irresistibly in triumph and conquest, there seemed to be a possibility that Hitler might establish himself as a kind of Charlemagne in Europe and would unite many countries under German sway while at the same time pointing to our island as the author of the blockade and the cause of all their woes. That danger, such as it was, and I certainly did not


think it negligible, has rolled away. The German is now more hated in every country in Europe than any race has been since human records began. In a dozen countries Hitler's firing-parties are at work every morning, and a dark stream of cold execution blood flows between the Germans and almost all their fellow-men. The cruelties, the massacres of hostages, the brutal persecutions in which the Germans have indulged in every land into which their armies have broken have recently received an addition in the most bestial, the most squalid and the most senseless of all their offences, namely, the mass deportation of Jews from France, with the pitiful horrors attendant upon the calculated and final scattering of families. This tragedy fills one with astonishment as well as with indignation, and it illustrates as nothing else can the utter degradation of the Nazi nature and theme, and the degradation of all who lend themselves to its unnatural and perverted passions.
When the hour of liberation strikes in Europe, as strike it will, it will also be the hour of retribution. I wish most particularly to identify His Majesty's Government and the House of Commons with the solemn words which were used lately by the President of the United States, namely, that those who are guilty of the Nazi crimes will have to stand up before tribunals in every land where their atrocities have been committed, in order that an indelible warning may be given to future ages and that successive generations of men may say, "So perish all who do the like again."

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: I think my first word ought to be a word of welcome, on behalf of the Members of this House, to the Prime Minister upon his safe return from his most recent, no doubt not his last, adventurous journey, an adventurous journey which in his inimitable way he has so picturesquely described, and thereby enabled himself no doubt to avoid entering on some rather more controversial issues. I will in the few remarks that I shall make follow the Prime Minister's references. I think we have all heard with pride of the success, notwithstanding heavy punishment, of the latest Malta convoy, for if that small indomitable island were to go, it would perhaps be Rommel's greatest victory. As regards Dieppe, the Prime Minister

told us very little, and perhaps that is not surprising. Though we accept the assurance that this was a reconnaissance in force, I have no doubt myself that it provided experience in combined operations which will be needed in the further stages of the war. It is, of course, obvious that the Prime Minister cannot tell the House how, when and where any further efforts of this kind, or greater ones, are to take place, but I noticed a phrase of his which I interpret in a generous manner. He spoke of Dieppe being a preliminary to full-scale operations. I have never myself joined in the demand for what is called a second front until such a new front could be successfully and permanently established, and it may well be that Dieppe has taught us a great deal as to our future operations.
I am glad the Prime Minister referred to the offensive action now being taken in the South-Western Pacific. The United States, like this country, got off on the wrong leg at the beginning of the war. For that, one does not attach any blame to any person, but it is a comfort now to know that the worst of the disasters may well be over in the Pacific. I wish that the Prime Minister, while he was roaming over that part of the globe, had referred to the recent victories in China, which have not perhaps received the attention in this part of the world that their intrinsic importance in my view demands. The Prime Minister's reference to increasing air raids was one which gives us considerable comfort. It is good to know that United States airmen and United States aircraft are taking part in ever-increasing numbers in both day and night raids, and out of their combined operations I have no doubt will come not double the strength but even more than double the strength of the two single air forces.
The sea situation, the right hon. Gentleman tells us, is somewhat better, that is to say, as I understood him, we are now producing rather more than we are losing, that our campaign against the U-boat is developing and heavy damage is being inflicted upon the enemy; but I submit that that is not enough. The right hon. Gentleman emphasised the overwhelming importance of sea-power for the United Nations, but merely to get on top of current losses does not do much to replace that vast amount of tonnage which


has gone to the bottom of the sea in the last three years. Therefore, we must not, and I think the Prime Minister would be the last to suggest that we should, fall into a sense of easy complacency about the shipping situation which, after all, whatever may be said about the production of munitions, is really the major bottle-neck of the war to-day as regards its conduct overseas, and, indeed as regards its conduct over here should that become necessary. With the Prime Minister I welcome Brazil, that great country with enormous resources and with a strategic advantage over that of all other parts of North and South America, as an active ally in the present great struggle.
I assume from what the Prime Minister said about the American Mission that closer bonds of co-operation were forged during that visit. His reference, however, was merely to the agreement between this country and the United States. One may hope that such co-operation as has been achieved has met with the approval and support of our other Allies, and that the results of that Mission will be woven into the major strategy of the war. With regard to the Middle East, the right hon. Gentleman has admitted that the situation had become somewhat unsatisfactory. When the changes took place, the public impression was one of mystification. I think the right hon. Gentleman has cleared the situation to-day. If, in his judgment, confirmed by the judgment of the War Cabinet, men are unfitted, for one reason or another which is not necessarily a criticism of them personally, for particular posts, or if they have become stale or tired, it is clear that they should be replaced. The right hon. Gentleman has expressed his perfect confidence in the new Army leaders. I remember an earlier occasion when he spoke with great fervour of the qualities of General Auchinleck—sincerely and no doubt rightly. One hopes that this very brave, very sincere and able man will not be relieved from war service for all time, and that his experience can be re-employed.
The right hon. Gentleman really is a master of the meaningless phrase, which he uses quite deliberately. He said that the results of recent months in Egypt were definitely not unsatisfactory. It would have pleased the Committee had he been able to say that, even within limits, they were definitely satisfactory.

The Prime Minister: I can say that too.

Mr. Greenwood: It would have convinced the Committee a little more had the right hon. Gentleman said it in his speech. After the ebb and flow, and the reverses that we have had, the public feel—and they will certainly feel it even more keenly after the Prime Minister's speech—that a definite advance ought soon to be made, in view of the very large reinforcements which, the Prime Minister told us, are now in that theatre of war.
As to Russia, it is perhaps in the nature of the case that the Prime Minister was uncommunicative. He did give us a picturesque account of his flight to Moscow, and then the door of the Kremlin closed, and we did not hear very much more about it. I think we can infer that the result of the discussions between Britain, the United States and the U.S.S.R. will be a new and better understanding. I am quite sure that the public heard of the Prime Minister's visit to Russia with pleasure and gratitude for two reasons. In the first place, the British people feel in their hearts that, however much we have done for the U.S.S.R. in material of all kinds—and it is not negligible—somehow it is not enough. That is the general feeling. One reason for the public appreciation of the Prime Minister's visit was, that out of this came the hope in peoples minds that it might lead to closer co-operation in the war sphere.

Dr. Haden Guest: Have we a united strategy?

Mr. Greenwood: I am just going to say a word on that point. The public of this country want to know whether Russia is now completely 100 per cent. in accord with the major strategy which, in the early days—although it may have been modified—was agreed upon between this country and the United States. The second reason why the public were more than interested in the Prime Minister's visit was that they know that Anglo-Russian relations have been clouded for many years by mutual suspicion, created very largely on this side, but which, having regard to their treatment in the Press, the Russians maintained up to very recent days. If we can do something, as the Prime Minister has told us he has endeavoured to do with some success, to


give the impression that we are not going to let the Russians down but are going to play fair by them, and that we are standing in with them in this struggle, it will not only add powerfully to the successful prosecution of the war but will lay the foundation of a permanent friendship after the war. In the years of the interregnum after the war, this will be vital to the maintenance of peace in Europe.
There is one aspect of the problem on which I would like to say a word or two. The British Trades Union Congress, which is the most powerful and most responsible trade union movement in the world, with its more than 6,000,000 members, is meeting in conference this week. Anybody who has read the president's address, the annual report or the agenda of resolutions, will find there an increasing toughness, an even stronger determination to secure, as far as possible, the effective prosecution of the war. The report of the Council records a year of great activity during which the Council have taken in very many ways their share of the burden of thought, advice and administration in all our war industries. Some of the resolutions seem to show that, without in any way wishing to minimise what has been done—we tend to do that too often—there is the view that labour, with its skill and experience, is not being used as fully as it should be. There is a wealth of experience and technical knowledge in the workshops and mines in this country which ought to be more fully mobilised for war purposes. That finds its expression in some of the resolutions of the Trades Union Congress. It is, or it may well be, the last ounce of that effort which will make the difference between victory and defeat in Egypt. If that ounce of effort can be obtained, as I believe it can, by harnessing the skill, enthusiasm and determination of the workers to the full, in my view it ought to be done.
The right hon. Gentleman at the end of his speech referred to the fourth year of war.

Dr. Haden Guest: On a point of Order. It is not very unusual for the Prime Minister to leave the House when the Leader of the Opposition is replying to his first speech? May I be informed whether he is coming back?

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): That is not a point of Order. The Leader of the House is here.

Mr. Greenwood: I think, Colonel Clifton Brown, it is a point of hunger, hunger which I share myself. That brings me to the conclusion of my own statement. The fourth year of war opens on a scene which seems to me to offer possibilities of accomplishment which we have not hitherto had in any previous year of the war. I think we are entitled to expect something more than sad reverses, something more than rebuffs, in this fourth year of war. When the factories of the world are pouring out munitions on a scale unprecedented in the world's history, when the number of men under arms grows day by day to gigantic proportions, we can only hope that the leadership of this and others of the great Allied countries will be such that this fourth year of war will register events which will stand to our credit, and will bring nearer the successful conclusion of the war.

Mr. Cary: I am sure that all hon. and right hon. Members of the Committee will have heard with perhaps even greater interest than on any other occasion the account which the Prime Minister has given of his most recent political tour. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) has just said, when the British public heard about it they were heartened and regarded it with the greatest satisfaction. The hazards of the journey were great and no doubt demanded great energy and endurance from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. But that sort of expedition seems to refresh my right hon. Friend rather than wear him out. May that long continue.
Following my right hon. Friend's visits to President Roosevelt, it had been the wish of many Members of this House that the Prime Minister should seek an early opportunity to meet the head of the Russian State. Members will recall the opinion which was expressed by the Deputy Prime Minister in the Debate on 19th May, when he said that you could not get leaders or leaders' representatives together quickly to-day. Air transportation has not been the limiting factor in taking the Prime Minister to Washington and Moscow, in taking General Smuts to Egypt or General Chiang Kai-shek to


Delhi, but the shortage of air transport equipment has been a grave handicap in many other directions—for essential personnel, mails and urgent battle equipment. I think that before we can begin to win this war at full flood much more will have to be done in that direction. I ask the Government to give it their fullest attention. The Empire, with its limitless frontiers of waterways and seaways, has the ideal geography for great seaplanes, and I hope this vital work will ultimately be planned at the centre by a central authority to which all the Empire Governments will subscribe.
I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister say that apart from Malta perhaps the most significant thing which has happened during the last four weeks has been the attack at Dieppe. Firstly, because it was the first real test of enemy defences, and secondly, because it provided a complete reversal of the long held military theory that the occupation of the Channel ports of the European coastline was fatal to the existence of Great Britain. No doubt the French General Staff, in the recommendation which it made to the French Government in June, 1940, and which was passed on to our own Prime Minister in such insulting phraseology, believed that the ultimate resistance of Great Britain was out of the question. But two years later what do we now see? That these Islands have become a gigantic forward base and aerodrome against the Continent, and in addition that they have become a titanic workshop for munitions of all sorts, with a greater output per man-unit than any other Allied nation including America. This has been achieved in spite of the most vicious submarine and air attacks against our merchant shipping. All honour is due to the Royal Navy, which must remain the supreme Service of the Armed Forces of the Crown.
I agree with the Prime Minister that if from now on we play our cards well there can be no question of how this war must end; not only must it end in our favour, but more important—

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Mr. Cary: As I was saying,. I was glad to hear the Prime Minister say that if

from now on we play our cards well there can be no question of how this war must end, not only ending in victory but promising the outright military defeat from the West of Hitler's Third Reich. Victory for us in the West has now become a legitimate ambition. I would ask other Allied nations to bear in mind that second fronts are not of limited application in geography, and that to continue to fight the enemy wherever he may appear or may be sought out is perhaps the best method of co-operation between the Allied nations.
At the beginning of the Recess in my own particular locality a large deputation waited upon the Lord Mayor of Manchester and asked for immediate action for the opening-up of a second front. The deputation claimed to represent 150,000 workers in surrounding industries. I think the time has come for a little straightforward speaking about this vital matter, which must do so much to shorten the war. No one, least of all the Prime Minister, would wish to damp down a natural desire for action. Surely he above all men would be the first to take some sudden action in removing any number of Nazis from the world, but my right hon. Friend has to put business before pleasure. I also hate the suggestion that the continuance of Russia's superb resistance is dependent or conditional upon something being done elsewhere. We have heard from the Prime Minister to-day of the superb leadership given to Russia by Premier Stalin. I have not the slightest doubt that that leadership will not fail.
When we do begin our attack in the West—call it a second front, call it what you will—we want our second front to be a freehold, not a tenancy. It will require better soldiers, better guns and better generalship than Germany's. It will require a level of training which will give us the advantage when the fight opens, and a margin of staying-power when it ends. Above all, we want to force the enemy to fight at the time, in the place and under the conditions best suited to ourselves. The period of "dare" in fighting this war is long since over. Cold calculation and exact planning to defeat the counter-planning of the German general staff are the only method. The deciding battle of this war will be the great engagement which must take place between the British-American


Army and the German Army. It is the battle the world is waiting for, and anyone can prophesy that the gaps in the man-power of all three nations engaged will, for many years after this war has ceased, be felt by those nations, and practically beyond repair. Many Members during the Recess have been heartened by seeing in so many parts of our country thousands of gallant American soldiers. We welcome them, and, as the Prime Minister has said, they represent a substantial fortification of our own efforts. The newspapers have catalogued a number of small isolated unfriendly incidents. It would indeed be strange if this sort of thing did not occur. But let us as a nation be at pains to be most tolerant and understanding hosts to these new Armies. This is the way I look at it. A high percentage of these men may not see the United States again, and Great Britain is the last free country many of them may know. I should like them to leave it, loving it and looking upon it as their own, and knowing it as the last free stronghold of democracy.
Sir Earle Page a few weeks ago prophesied that this war would last 10 years, that the Allies would lose the first four years and the Germans would lose the last six. I would be astonished if the German nation could suffer six years in reverse. Another Empire statesman, Mr. Nash, who "The Times" described as a friendly critic, and who is a great friend of this country, took us to task for not taking more trouble with or, at this juncture, more interest in the problems of post-war reconstruction. I think it would be a great mistake to divert too many of our energies to that sort of work or even to divert the minds of our people to considering what might follow this war. There is confidence of the victory in the West, but also a tendency to oversimplify the circumstances of victory day by stating what we failed to do to Germany in 1918. Twenty-three years ago the French and ourselves had suffered millions of casualties, inflation had poisoned our financial system, our delicate capitalist business machinery, which alone sustained the enormous population of these Islands, was in ruins. Tens of thousands of men overseas wanted to come home, and many of their civilian relatives demanded the return home of their surviving men. In those circumstances exhaustion and war sickness were

not all on the German side. If we had embarked on the occupation of Germany with a gigantic army of our own, a civilian army, for the purpose of civilising a demobilised and demoralised German army, I think it would have been a total failure.
Against what we did then such an occupation seems even now to me to be a fantastic alternative. Both our countries have terrible years ahead. Both sides are fighting for their lives. In my opinion it will go to the last bitter round, and the victor may have no more than a slender margin of staying-power left at the end. I would ask the Government not to associate themselves in any way with false hopes for the aftermath of victory. Rather let them devote all their energy to keeping the nation's will fixed on the one objective of overthrowing the Nazi tyranny by making all three Fighting Services the champions of every engagement If the Government do that, they will have served their country well. As far as my own constituency is concerned, the Prime Minister and his colleagues still enjoy the full confidence of the people.

Dr. Haden Guest: The Prime Minister, in giving his resumé of the war situation to-day, has given us a vivid insight into a large number of matters over a very wide field, but I feel, and I am sure I speak for many in this House, that he has not given us enough detailed information on certain matters which the House and which the country will wish to have. Dealing with the arrangements in the Middle East—the desert Army's affairs, as the Prime Minister described them—he gave us a good deal of detail. He described the arrangements of the Army. He made what to me was the very shocking revelation that Rommel was able to make his swift advance because of the equipment, ammunition, and supplies left behind by us. He gave us a great deal of detail about that campaign, and gave us—justifiably, so far as I am able to judge—by his words encouragement about the resisting powers of the Army defending Egypt, a point of defence vital for the whole of the world war.
When the Prime Minister dealt with the even more important matter of—I took down his own words at the time—the continuous effort to unify command between ourselves and the United States—those


were the only two countries he mentioned at first—he told us that there had been a very important mission in this country in July last, that it spent, I think, 10 days here, in continuous consultation, and that a very great measure of understanding and agreement was reached. That is, to my thinking, one of the most important parts of the Prime Minister's speech. Complete understanding and agreement between all the United Nations is the most important need at the present time. When my right hon. Friend was speaking from these benches just now, I ventured to interject a question as to whether the Prime Minister, when he was in Russia, had arranged equally close collaboration with Premier Stalin, leading to a united strategy. It is this united strategy between ourselves, the United States, the U.S.S.R., and China—and I regret that China seems to have been rather left out of the picture—as well as the other United Nations, to which we must address our efforts.
I have been an advocate on public platforms of what is known as the second front, because I believe that Germany can be beaten and brought to her knees, as she must be, only by an attack on land in Europe from this country as well as the attack from the Soviet Union. But it is really incorrect to speak of a second front, because in this world war there is really only one front. It has different sections. There is the front of the oceans, in which we hold the offensive in our hands in nearly all places—and in which our effort, I think, has been somewhat under-estimated. Were it not for the tremendous power of the British Navy, now fortunately added to by the American Navy, on the seas, the war could not have continued to this moment, whatever forces there had been on land. That front on the sea is of the first importance. But that other front on land, which stretches from the Arctic down through Leningrad and Moscow and Stalingrad, through the Caucasus and through the countries of the Near East, to Egypt and Libya, is of equal importance; and every part of that land front is as much our front as it is the front of the Soviet people.
The Soviet people at this moment are hotly contesting Stalingrad, where I understand there is a concentration of German troops, land forces and air forces, stronger than that which was in France

at the time of the fall of France. Whether that is so or not, the concentration of German troops against Stalingrad is' undoubtedly greater than anything we have seen in this war. The Russian troops there are not fighting an isolated battle for Stalingrad; they are not fighting merely to uphold the liberties and rights of the Soviet people; they are fighting a key battle in the world war, and what they do affects us as much as it does them. Until that realisation can enter into the minds of all of us we have not realised the meaning of this global war, as President Roosevelt calls it.
Is it true that there are on the Russian front at present 75 per cent. of Germany's effective military forces and air forces? Is it true that with one-quarter of his forces Hitler is keeping all the rest of the world with which he is in immediate opposition engaged, keeping Europe in subjection, keeping our forces here inactive, keeping the Americans inactive, and also carrying on the strenuous attacks which Rommel is delivering in Egypt? If that is true, what is going to happen if Hitler can succeed in his clear, obvious, and simple plan of driving back the Russians to the Volga, and fortifying the Volga as his East wall, which he could maintain, according to competent military critics, with a comparatively small army, enabling him to turn the rest of his armies on to some other front. I do not say that he is going to turn the rest of his armies on to this country; no doubt the fortress of Great Britain would be by-passed. Where he might turn them is to the Near East and Iraq, to make a junction there with Japan. I do not think we have been given enough information by the Prime Minister as to these possibilities, and as to what we are doing. I have strongly advocated the opening of an offensive by this country, with the assistance of the Americans, on the Continent of Europe. I have advocated that because only by smashing the Germans on land will you beat these prodigiously well-armoured and well-generaled men. You cannot do it by this long-distance bombing of the cities of Germany, which may have excellent results on their production, and, therefore, on supplies in six, nine or 12 months' time, but which does not affect the immediate issue of the fighting on the Russian front, which is the front that matters. Cannot the Prime Minister give us some more explanation about that?
Cannot he also tell us why this Government, under this Prime Minister, which has been in existence now for two years and three months, is not more ready to take action on land than it is at present? I do not underrate the immense effort which this country has made. I do not underrate the tremendous effort we have made upon the sea—an effort which, as I said just now, I think has been underrated—which is just as important as the land front in Russia; but, after two years and three months of a Government pledged to an all-out war effort, we ought to be more ready than we are to strike a blow.
I do not doubt ultimate victory. I know the spirit of our people, of the Dominions, of the Soviet Union, of the Allied Nations and of the United States of America under their great leader, President Roosevelt, but I do not want this war to be prolonged for two, four, six or more years, but to be brought to an end at an earlier period. If we allow Hitler at the present time to immobilise the Russian Forces by building an east wall on the Volga river, who then could say how long this war will continue, if Hitler is then free to dispose of his effectives on any other front he pleases? Do not let us exaggerate, or rather do not let us minimise the very great advantages which Hitler obtains at the present time from having the whole effective production strength of Europe at his disposal. We know that there is sabotage, that there is "Go Slow" and an unwillingness to co-operate, but not everywhere, and we know his difficulty in getting things done. But let us be so foolish or impotent as to allow Hitler to make a junction with the Japanese, and then he will have not only the productive power of Europe at his disposal but the national resources of the tropical world as well as the production resources here. This is a very real threat. Every competent military observer will, I believe, consider it to be at least a threat, and some consider it a very grave threat, and, if there is this possibility in front of us, the survey which the Prime Minister has given to us, fine and in some ways refreshing as it is, is not sufficient.
We are entitled to come back to the question with which I began and to which I hope we shall be given some answer at the end of the Debate—What progress has been made towards unifying the strategy

of this country, the United States, the Soviet Union, China, and of all the United Nations in order that we may use all our resources at the point where the enemy is weakest and oppose him where he is strong with defensive forces, that we may have our forces concentrated and not dispersed, that they may be one spearhead directed at the German heart and not a whole flock of little arrows thrown around here, there and everywhere? We want to hit with all the Forces of the United Nations behind our Forces, and that can only be done if we have a united strategy and unity of command which will insist upon that being done.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again" [Major Sir James Edmondson], put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn" [Captain McEwen].

Earl Winterton: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he can make any announcement, as the circumstances obviously necessitate, as to what the Business will be on the next Sitting Day?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir Stafford Cripps): I have not had time to consider the matter through the usual channels, but I shall do so, and obviously, until I have had time to consider it, I cannot make any announcement.

Earl Winterton: Will my right hon. and learned Friend be good enough to consider the appeal which has been made in some quarters that there should be a discussion on the Prime Minister's statement with regard to India?

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly.

Miss Rathbone: I had no intention of speaking on this occasion, but as there is an opportunity which may not occur on the third Sitting Day, when there are likely to be very many who desire to speak, I will take the opportunity of raising a few points on the question of the pay of the


Armed Forces. I shall not be able to do so as effectively—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Clifton Brown): I am afraid that the Rule on anticipation would be applicable to that discussion, and the subject cannot therefore be discussed now.

Miss Rathbone: Can you tell me whether it is possible to discuss, without reference to, that Debate, some of the methods that I think need changing in the present system of the remuneration of the Armed Forces? I would like to discuss, for example, how far able and poor men are prevented from applying for commissions because of low pay, high messing bills and high charges for uniform and so on, I would like to discuss how far the Jewish Army is being prevented from being recruited in Palestine because there are no separation allowances for dependants other than wives and because the rate of separation allowances is quite inadequate. Is it not possible on the Adjournment to discuss such problems?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the second problem would be in Order as not being down for discussion on the Third Sitting Day but the first part of the hon. Lady's remarks would definitely be out of Order on the ground of anticipation.

Mr. A. Edwards: Can the Lord Privy Seal say on what grounds he was led to arrange for two days to be devoted to this Debate, in view of the fact that, after we had heard the speech of the Prime Minister, who did not sit long enough to listen to the end of the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, the latter spoke to an almost empty House? There were four Members on the other side and four on duty on the Front Bench, and six on this side and two on duty on the Front Bench. It would seem that we are reducing Parliamentary procedure to a complete farce, if we are to have Debates arranged which we are led to believe will be important Debates on the developments of the war. We are treating the Prime Minister, with these frequent exhibitions, as a kind of prima donna. Did we come here to discuss the progress of the war or not? About 300 Members of Parliament are in the precincts of this House, and yet not more than 20 were willing to stay even to hear a second

speech. Was it necessary to devote two days to this subject and ask Members to remain in town an extra day this week?

Sir S. Cripps: The matter was arranged through the ordinary channels, and the expectation was that a sufficient number of Members would be interested in the matter to take their turn in the Debate for two days. I am as surprised as my hon. Friend that Members have not wished to speak upon the subject matter. Apparently the Prime Minister's speech leaves nothing for discussion, but I am bound to say that it does cause me, as Leader of the House, very seriously to think when Members cannot wait even, as my hon. Friend said, to hear the first two leading speeches in the Debate. I think it is a most unfortunate thing that such disrespect should be paid to the Leader of the Opposition or that Members should go out in the middle of the Prime Minister's speech, as a number of Members did. I do not think that we can conduct our proceedings here with the dignity and the weight with which we should conduct them unless Members are prepared to pay greater attention to their duties in this House, which are just as great as the duties of men in the trenches at the front.

Mr. A. Edwards: Further to that, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he has been led to suppose from what is so frequently referred to in this House as "the usual channels" that there would be a House which really wanted two days' Debate? I have never seen such a disgraceful thing happen as has happened here to-day. The whole Press was full of statements last week that the House was on its toes, and it seems that the Government have been led to suppose that two days must be devoted to the Debate, necessitating, thereby, a change in our programme. Does not my right hon. and learned Friend think that this sort of thing is inviting the suspension of Parliamentary Privilege if hundreds of Members treat the House with the disrespect that they have shown to-day?

Sir S. Cripps: I have already stated my views upon the attendances of Members of the House, which during the last series of sittings were very poor indeed, much to my regret. If I may answer the Noble Lord opposite now, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will proceed with the Business of the Vote of Credit on our next Sitting Day.

Earl Winterton: Are we to have a chance of debating the Prime Minister's statement?

Sir S. Cripps: I will see if consideration can be given to that, but arrangements cannot be made for it to be done on our next Sitting Day. The Chancellor, instead of making his statement on the last of our series of Sitting Days this week, will make a statement on our next Sitting Day and the Debate on the financial side of this Vote of Credit can only proceed then.

Miss Rathbone: Are we to understand that the Debate on our next Sitting Day will not be on the conduct of the war but on the Chancellor's statement? I think that what has really happened is that a good many Members who want to speak on our next Sitting Day want time to think over the Prime Minister's statement first. There will be considerable dismay when they will find that they have lost their chance.

Sir S. Cripps: I am afraid that if Members cannot attend in the House, they must lose their opportunity of speaking. It is the intention to proceed with the financial side of the Vote of Credit on our next Sitting Day.

Miss Rathbone: I think that the probable explanation is that a great many Members want to speak on the question of Army pay and allowances, and knowing that it would not be possible for them to speak twice, they have reserved themselves for that. Cannot the Business be so adjusted that the part of the day which is left free, to-day or our next Sitting Day, can be used to extend the Debate on Army pay and allowances?

Sir S. Cripps: I will consider that in association with the other matters which have been suggested to me. I hope to announce on our next Sitting Day how the time will be used.

SECOND FRONT

Mr. Gallacher: With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is it not possible to make a speech now? Apart from the question of Army pay, there are one or two matters of the greatest importance which ought to be discussed today. One question which was not dealt with in the Prime Minister's statement was the situation in India.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We disposed of that by reporting Progress. We are now on the Adjournment of the House.

Mr. Gallacher: Arising out of the proposal to report Progress—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That has already been decided.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Is it not possible for a Member who rises on the Motion for the Adjournment to revert back to something which has transpired already and continue the Debate on that subject?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No. The general rule—I think the custom anyhow—is that once a matter has been disposed of and we have reported Progress, a Debate cannot be re-opened on it on the Adjournment.

Earl Winterton: Is it not a fact that it has been more a custom than a matter of procedure and that, although a Member may not in such circumstances refer to a previous Debate, he can raise questions which he would have raised provided he does not refer to the previous Debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It depends upon the Member's Parliamentary agility.

Mr. Gallacher: I cannot claim to have the Parliamentary agility of my Noble Friend who sits below me, although I am always amenable to the Ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I ought to warn the hon. Member that the Prime Minister made his speech in Committee, and the House has no knowledge of it. Therefore, the hon. Member may not refer to the Prime Minister's speech.

Mr. Gallacher: Well, I am not keenly interested in the Prime Minister at the present time. What I am interested in—and I do not know whether we can get any information from the Deputy Prime Minister or the Leader of the House—is whether any attempt is to be made to reopen negotiations with India? I am deeply concerned about this, because I feel that the situation which confronts us is a dangerous situation and need not exist. I believe it will be possible, with good will, to meet the Congress Committee and put proposals before them in order to draw the great masses of the people away from this unfortunate and


undesirable policy of civil disobedience into the closest possible unity with the people of this country. I would also like to refer to another question on which we ought to have some information, namely, the all-important question of the second front in Europe. There has been much discussion in the Press, and much feeling in the country, and many arguments are now being presented against the question of a second front. There are those who say that people have no right to mention the second front if they are not going out to be killed. If that is suggested, it means that no Member of the House of Commons or the Government would have any right of any kind to say anything about our military operations, which means that this House might just as well shut up and leave everything to the "brass hats." Members, their constituents and soldiers would have no right to speak. Only the "brass hats" would be left to—

Sir Edward Grigg: Surely the hon. Member has forgotten that the House does not leave such matters to what he calls the "brass hats." It leaves them to its own Members who happen to form the War Cabinet.

Mr. Gallacher: If a member of the War Cabinet has a right to his opinion on strategy, I say that I have that right. If I have no right to an opinion because I am not going out to be killed, then no member of the War Cabinet has the right. It is absurd to present an argument of that kind; anybody in this House has a right to express an opinion about a second front, and their constituents have the same right.

Sir E. Grigg: That is not the argument I used. The hon. Member said we left matters entirely to the "brass hats." They are left to the Cabinet.

Mr. Gallacher: I said that the use of an argument that no one has the right to express an opinion on strategy, unless he is going out to be killed, should not be tolerated. The important thing this House must face is whether we are to wait until the second front is set up here or whether we are to take the opportunity that lies before us of setting up a second front in Europe. There will be sacrifices, I know, in setting up such a second

front, but if we co-operate with our Allies there is no question that the back of the war could be broken by the end of 1942. Everybody understands that the situation in the Soviet Union is very critical.
It is a very critical situation not only for the Soviet Union, but for Germany. It is a crisis that works both ways. If the balance is thrown in the proper direction, there can be a final catastrophe for the Nazi armies. Hitler himself has said that last winter the Nazi armies were faced with near catastrophe. If the blows are struck now, as they might have been struck last winter, it can be made complete catastrophe for the Nazi armies. I see from the "Daily Worker"—a very valuable newspaper; I have it here, and it is as well that hon. Members should see that it is on the road again—that very strong feelings are being expressed in many parts of this country—and in America President Roosevelt has come out very strongly on this question within the past day or two—so that we should have no hesitation whatever in discussing in the House the all-important question of strategy and the general principle of a second front in Europe. That does not mean that we should say when, where and in what circumstances the second front in Europe will be created; those things must be kept in the strictest secrecy.
I want also to say to hon. Members that we must show the greatest care in any activities that we engage in and in any material that we may issue. Last week, I saw a manifesto—I do not know who issued it—asking for Socialism, and a number of Labour Members of Parliament had been persuaded to sign their names to it. That sort of thing can do incalculable harm. Nobody will hand them Socialism on a plate. The idea of that manifesto seems to be that if the Government will hand over Socialism, those signing the manifesto will be in favour of fighting the war, but if not, there is no use the workers producing, or doing anything—that there is no use fighting or winning the war if we have not got Socialism. I say to those Labour Members who were foolish enough to allow themselves to be persuaded into signing such a swindling document that we cannot advance towards Socialism unless we fight against Fascism, and we must fight against Fascism with all


the ruthless power that we can muster for that task. I say also that in the fight against Fascism there must be the greatest measure of national unity. The right hon. Gentleman the Deputy Prime Minister will agree with me on the need for national-unity. But we cannot get national unity unless we get basic working class unity. We cannot conceive of national unity if the working classes are not united. Yet the Labour party issued last week a document attacking the Communists, as if there were no Fascist menace, no Nazis in existence and no concentration camps, and as if they had learned no lesson from events in Germany, where a lack of unity opened the way to Hitler. Cannot they understand that it was lack of unity in Germany that brought upon us the present catastrophe? You may blame the Communists or you may blame the Social Democrats, but it was lack of unity in Germany that brought upon us this conflict, with all the terror and suffering that have to be endured.
Yet the Labour leaders brought out a document last week as though there were no crisis, no war, no deadly menace to this country, a document making an attack upon the Communists and asking where their money comes from. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary can tell them where the money comes from. The late Mr. Lees-Smith, at the time the ban was placed on the "Daily Worker," went to the Home Office to make inquiries on that very point, and the Chief of the Home Office told him—I have seen the typewritten document—that every penny the Communists get for the newspaper and the party comes from the people of this country, and that there is no need for and no evidence of a penny coming from any other source. I challenge the Home Secretary on that. But let us forget these things. Let us forget the bitter mistakes of the past, whoever made them, and let us get basic unity of the working-class movement on which can be built real national unity for the prosecution of the war against Fascism and the advance towards Socialism.

FIRE SERVICES

Mr. Logan: I want to take this opportunity of bringing to the notice of the Deputy Prime Minister the question of fire watching and the compulsory bringing-in of women for fire watching. The Minister of Home

Security, I should think without any consultation, has taken certain steps in regard to these important matters. In the City of Liverpool last week, the City Council disagreed with the whole of the system, and it was thought that women would not be able to take it on the chin. That statement is very flippantly used nowadays, but anybody who was in the City of Liverpool and encountered eight consecutive nights of blitz, knows that women were not able to take it on the chin. They were very much excited about the security of their own homes. At that time there was in Liverpool a great deal of demolition and a great many fires, and our people were very much perturbed. I am perturbed now to find that the Minister of Home Security has brought out an Order of a compulsory character to bring women into the centre of the city for fire watching. I do not think there has been any consultation—as far as Liverpool is concerned there has been none—and knowing that the Home Secretary has a knowledge of local government which is as good as that of any other person in the country, I am surprised that a large city such as Liverpool—I do not know anything of the other cities and towns of the country—was not consulted by the Home Secretary as to what was the best thing to do.
I am fully convinced that the step about to be taken is not in the best interests of the nation, and in the City of Liverpool, with its vast docks and locomotive and transport works, it is one of the most lamentable things that any Minister has ever introduced. Instead of there being fire watching that is beneficial, there will be fire watching that will be detrimental. It would be possible to get many women to do the fire watching voluntarily, but to compel all and sundry to fire watch in the city, especially in the centre of the city in the huge buildings far away from their homes, is not the proper way to deal with the matter. I feel sure that other cities also disagree with the whole system. I should have thought that the Minister of Home Security would have been able, through the Press, to make some reply on this matter or to give some indication that it was worth considering, but I find to-day that once a man occupies any great post in the Government he becomes as dictatorial as some of the systems that we have to fight against. I am


rather impressed by the fact that hon. Members who, when they were on this side of the House, were always able to see two sides of a matter, when they get to the other side of the House seem to be affected only by their own point of view. In Liverpool there is a great body of Labour men and women, and they are not in any way pleased at the attitude that has been adopted towards this matter. I have a question on the Order Paper at the next Sitting Day, and if the Minister of Home Security has not deliberated over this matter, I shall be able to give a report to the answer that he may give me.
Another important thing I find is that strikes are occurring among men in the National Fire Service. These are the men who have been dealing with blitzes ever since Hitler has been sending his planes over to this country. When I find this organisation being disturbed without consultation and the men grumbling, I begin to wonder whether we are not fitted for Colney Hatch, and whether there should not be some damping down by a more compos mentis mind. We were all glad when the nationalisation of the Fire Service was brought about, especially when we remember the earlier difficulties over hoses which would not fit, and how brigades could not be used because their equipment was not the right size. I see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is smiling. I love his little angelic smiles.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I am sorry, but I was not following my hon. Friend.

Mr. Logan: This is not a smiling matter. We are obtaining valuable work from these people, and it is base ingratitude to upset such a splendid service without consultations. I say it is arrogance on the part of the Government or of any person to determine these matters off his own bat and without having any regard to the views of those engaged in the Service. I know comment will be made on that statement, but after all we are all working for the national purpose, and, therefore, no man should be afraid to express his opinions, especially when he knows them to be true. In the best interests of Liverpool, I say it is time a change was made, and that the Home Secretary should give some consideration to these people. He

should see whether out of this disorder order cannot be brought about. Knowledge of London may be all right, but surely a great seaport like Liverpool is also worthy of consideration. My remarks are not made solely to criticise, but to bring something constructive out of all this chaos. I trust that the Deputy Prime Minister will express my views to the Home Secretary. I would also point out that the city council passed a resolution against this action, which they considered was not in the interests of the city.

Mr. A. Edwards: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Member has already addressed the House.

Mr. Edwards: On that occasion I rose only to put a point of procedure. I will not delay the House on this issue which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan). As his remarks are to be passed on to the Home Secretary, I should like to draw attention to the fact that my town council has passed a resolution asking for a special inquiry. My constituency has suffered more from fires during recent months than any other town in the country, and very serious allegations have been made. The council passed, almost unanimously, a resolution asking for a special inquiry, but what surprised me was that it was turned down by the Home Secretary on the grounds that he had sufficient information. I think that he should give careful consideration to this matter. A few days ago my office was filled with firemen, who were alarmed because they felt they were governed and directed by amateurs who knew nothing whatever about fire fighting. I think it would be wise for the Home Secretary to look into this question which is being raised by the men who do the fire fighting and take the risk.
There are some rather stupid regulations. I know of a case of a fire brigade coming from another town which passed a fire on the way and had to travel three or four miles to headquarters before they could obtain permission to tackle it. That sort of thing may have been overlooked when the Regulations were issued, but now that the Home Secretary knows about it I hope the Regulations will be revised. A fire brigade captain should have authority


to stop and help at a fire—at any rate, there are such things as telephones. There should be some method for obtaining assistance other than a brigade having first to travel three miles to reach headquarters. I am sure the position is much more serious than the Home Secretary realises, and I hope he will make a thorough investigation.

MINERS' COMPENSATION (GREENE AWARD)

Mr. Tinker: I wish to raise a point in connection with the Greene award to miners in receipt of partial compensation. I think it was understood that the award should apply to everyone, but unfortunately men in receipt of compensation are not receiving the full amount. This is causing great discontent in the coalfields. When I heard the Prime Minister's speech to-day—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must remind the hon. Member that he may not refer to the Prime Minister's speech to-day on the Adjournment.

Mr. Tinker: All I was going to say was that the Prime Minister told us about the good feeling among the troops. What we want is good feeling at home among all sections of our workers. We in the mining industry are satisfied with the position, except as it applies to what we call partial compensation men. If this

can be remedied, I believe we shall remove one of the obstacles to production. We have approached the employers, and they say that the award was not made definite on this point, but that if we can get a lead from the Government something may then be done about it. I contend that the good offices of the Deputy Prime Minister might be used with good effect in this direction, but like many other things a lead must first be given. I ask him to try to get the parties together with a view to rectifying this difficulty, and if that is done, I think a good deal of good will come of it. In Lancashire in particular the men are clamouring for drastic action, and drastic action means stoppages in the coalfields. No responsible miners' leader would sanction action of that kind. When men are insisting on their right to have something done, we ought to take every opportunity to bring the matter to the notice of the powers-that-be. Unless something is done, it may lead to men refusing to work. We never seem to do the right thing until we are forced to do it, and eventually, when there is unrest and a stoppage of work, Parliament intervenes. I am asking that the question should be examined and dealt with before matters have gone too far.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.